Case Law

Question 1

Murray Wright Ltd

Answer 1

Because the killing must be done by a human being, an organisation(such as a hospital or food company) cannot be convicted as a principal offender.

Question 2

Case Law - Human/Company

Answer 2

Murray Wright Ltd
Because the killing must be done by a human being, an organisation(such as a hospital or food company) cannot be convicted as a principal offender.

Question 3

R v Myatt

Answer 3

[Before a breach of any Act, regulation or bylaw would be an unlawful act under S 160 for the purposes of culpable homicide] it must be an act likely to do harm to the deceased or to some class of persons of whom he was one.

Question 4

Case Law - Unlawful Act

Answer 4

R v Myatt
[Before a breach of any Act, regulation or bylaw would be an unlawful act under S 160 for the purposes of culpable homicide] it must be an act likely to do harm to the deceased or to some class of persons of whom he was one.

Question 5

R v Tomars

Answer 5

formulates the issues in the following way:

1. Was the deceased threatened by, in fear of or deceived by the defendant?
2. If they were, did such threats, fear or deception cause the deceased to do the act that caused their death?
3. Was the act a natural consequence of the actions of the defendant. in the sense that reasonable and responsible people in the defendant’s position at the time could reasonably have foreseen the consequences?
4. Did these foreseeable actions of the Victim contribute in a {significant} way to his death?

Question 6

Case Law - Threats, fear and deception

Answer 6

R v Tomars
formulates the issues in the following way:
1. Was the deceased threatened by, in fear of or deceived by the defendant?
2.If they were, did such threats, fear or deception cause the deceased to do the act that caused their death?
3. Was the act a natural consequence of the actions of the defendant. in the sense that reasonable and responsible people in the defendant’s position at the time could reasonably have foreseen the consequences?
4. Did these foreseeable actions of the Victim contribute in a {significant} way to his death?

Question 7

R v Horry

Answer 7

Death should be provable by such circumstances as render it morally certain and leave no ground for reasonable doubt - that the circumstantial evidence should be so cogent and compelling as to convince a jury that upon no rational hypothesis other than murder can the facts be accounted for.

Question 8

Case Law - No body

Answer 8

R v Horry
Death should be provable by such circumstances as render it morally certain and leave no ground for reasonable doubt - that the circumstantial evidence should be so cogent and compelling as to convince a jury that upon no rational hypothesis other than murder can the facts be accounted for.

Question 9

Case Law - Recklessness (actions)

Answer 9

Cameron v R
Recklessness is established if:
(a) the defendant recognised that there was a real possibility that:
(i) his or her actions would bring about the proscribed result and/or
(ii) that the proscribed circumstances existed; and
(b) having regard for that risk those actions were unreasonable.

Question 10

R v Piri

Answer 10

Recklessness {here} involves a conscious, deliberate risk taking. The degree of risk of death foreseen by the accused under either s167(b) or (d) must be more than negligible or remote. The accused must recognise a ‘real or substantial risk’ that death would be caused.

Question 11

Case Law - Recklessness (death)

Answer 11

R v Piri
Recklessness {here} involves a conscious, deliberate risk taking. The degree of risk of death foreseen by the accused under either s167(b) or (d) must be more than negligible or remote. The accused must recognise a ‘real or substantial risk’ that death would be caused.

Question 12

R v Desmond

Answer 12

Not only must the object be unlawful, but also the accused must know that his act is likely to cause death. It must be shown that his knowledge accompanied the act causing death.

Question 13

Case Law - Unlawful Object

Answer 13

R v Desmond
Not only must the object be unlawful, but also the accused must know that his act is likely to cause death. It must be shown that his knowledge accompanied the act causing death.

Question 14

R v Murphy

Answer 14

When proving an attempt to commit an offence it must be shown that the accused’s intention was to commit the substantive offence. For example, in a case of attempted murder it is necessary for the Crown to establish an actual intent to kill.

Question 15

Case Law - Attempt Murder

Answer 15

R v Murphy
When proving an attempt to commit an offence it must be shown that the accused’s intention was to commit the substantive offence. For example, in a case of attempted murder it is necessary for the Crown to establish an actual intent to kill.

Question 16

R v Harpur

Answer 16

{The Court may} have regard to the conduct viewed cumulatively up to the point when the conduct in question stops. . . the Defendant’s conduct {may} be considered in its entirety. Considering how much remains to be done . . . is always relevant, though not determinative.

Question 17

Case Law - Attempts

Answer 17

R v Harpur
{The Court may} have regard to the conduct viewed cumulatively up to the point when the conduct in question stops. . . the Defendant’s conduct {may} be considered in its entirety. Considering how much remains to be done . . . is always relevant, though not determinative.

Question 18

R v Mane

Answer 18

For a person to be an accessory the offence must be complete at the time of the criminal involvement. One cannot be convicted of being an accessory after the fact of murder when the actus reus of the alleged criminal conduct was wholly completed before the offence of homicide was completed.

Question 19

Case Law - Accessory after the fact

Answer 19

R v Mane
For a person to be an accessory the offence must be complete at the time of the criminal involvement. One cannot be convicted of being an accessory after the fact of murder when the actus reus of the alleged criminal conduct was wholly completed before the offence of homicide was completed.

Question 20

R v Blaue

Answer 20

Those who use violence must take their Victim’s as they find them.

Question 21

Case Law - Preventable death

Answer 21

R v Blaue

Those who use violence must take their Victim’s as they find them.

Question 22

R v Forrest & Forrest

Answer 22

The best evidence possible in the circumstances should be adduced by the prosecution in proof of the Victim’s age.

Question 23

R v Cottle (burden of proof)

Answer 23

As to degree of proof, it is sufficient if the plea is established to the satisfaction of the jury on a preponderance of probabilities without necessarily excluding all reasonable doubt.

Question 24

Case Law - Degree of proof

Answer 24

R v Cottle
As to degree of proof, it is sufficient if the plea is established to the satisfaction of the jury on a preponderance of probabilities without necessarily excluding all reasonable doubt.

Question 25

R v Clark

Answer 25

The decision as to an accused’s insanity is always for the jury and a verdict inconsistent with medical evidence is not necessarily unreasonable. But where unchallenged medical evidence is supported by the surrounding facts a jury’s verdict must be founded on that evidence which in this case shows that the accused did not and had been unable to know that his act was morally wrong.

Question 26

Case Law - Insanity

Answer 26

R v Clark
The decision as to an accused’s insanity is always for the jury and a verdict inconsistent with medical evidence is not necessarily unreasonable. But where unchallenged medical evidence is supported by the surrounding facts a jury’s verdict must be founded on that evidence which in this case shows that the accused did not and had been unable to know that his act was morally wrong.

Question 27

R v Codere

Answer 27

The nature and quality of the act means the physical character of the act. The phrase does not involve any consideration of the accused’s moral perception nor his knowledge of the moral quality of the act. Thus a person who is so deluded that he cuts a woman’s throat believing he is cutting a loaf of bread would not know the nature and quality of his act.

Question 28

Case Law - Nature & Quality

Answer 28

R v Codere
The nature and quality of the act means the physical character of the act. The phrase does not involved any consideration of the accused’s moral perception nor his knowledge of the moral quality of the act. Thus a person who is so deluded that he cuts a woman’s throat believing he is cutting a loaf of bread would not know the nature and quality of his act.

Question 29

R v Cottle (automatism)

Answer 29

Doing something without knowledge of it and without memory afterwards of having done it - a temporary eclipse of consciousness that nevertheless leaves the person so affected able to exercise bodily movements.

Question 30

Case Law - automatism

Answer 30

R v Cottle
Doing something without knowledge of it and without memory afterwards of having done it - a temporary eclipse of consciousness that nevertheless leaves the person so affected able to exercise bodily movements.

Question 31

R v Joyce

Answer 31

The Court of appeal decided that the compulsion must be made by a person who is present when the offence is committed.

Question 32

Case Law - Compulsion

Answer 32

R v Joyce

The Court of appeal decided that the compulsion must be made by a person who is present when the offence is committed.

Question 33

Police v Lavelle

Answer 33

It is permissible for undercover officers to merely provide the opportunity for someone who is ready and willing to offend, as long as the officers did not initiate the person’s interest or willingness to so offend.

Question 34

Case Law - Undercover officers (entrapment)

Answer 34

Police v Lavelle
It is permissible for undercover officers to merely provide the opportunity for someone who is ready and willing to offend, as long as the officers did not initiate the person’s interest or willingness to so offend.