Case Law Flashcards
Murray Wright Ltd
[Company]
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
R v Myatt
[Unlawful act]
Before a breach of any act, regulation or bylaw would be an unlawful act under S160 of 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.
R v Tomars
[Threats fear of violence –> getting away fly to mars]
1) Was the deceased threatened by, in fear of or deceived by the defendant?
2) If yes, were the threats, fear or deception caused the deceased to do the act that caused their death?
3) Was the act a natural consequence from the defendants action? Meaning would a reasonable person in the defendants position at the time could of foreseen these consequences
4) Did these foreseeable actions of the victim contribute a significant way to their death:?
R v Horry
[Horrible no body]
Death should be provable by such circumstances that it is certain or no grounds for reasonable doubt that the evidence should be so compelling that there is no other reasonable hypothesis other than murder
R v Cameron
Recklessness is established if:
a) the defendant recognised that there was a real possibility that:
i) his actions would bring about the proscribed results
ii) the proscribed circumstances exists
b) having regard to that risk those actions were unjestifiable
R v Piri
[Piri –> Police - Pursuits are recklesss]
Recklessness here involves a conscious and deliberate risk taking. The degree of risk foreseen by the accused under 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
R v Desmond
[Desmond Hiko unlawful acts]
Not only is the object unlawful but the accused knew his act were likely to cause death. Must show that his knowledge accompanied the act causing death
R v Murphy
[Murph –> soilder –> attempt to kill]
When proving an attempt to commit an offence it must be shown that the accused intention was to commit the substance offence. For example in a case of attempted murder it is necessary for the crown to establish an actual intent to kill
R v Harpur
[harpoon –> number of acts –> loading, aim, shoot]
The court have regard to the conduct viewed cumulatively up to the point when the conduct in question stops…the defendant conduct may be considered in its entirety. Considering how much remains to be done..is always relevant though not determinative
R v Mane
[Maine –> AT –> can not complete AT if you didn’t complete it all]
For a person to be an accessory, the offence must be complete at the time of the criminal involvement.
One can not be convicted of being an accessory to murder when the act reus of the alleged murder before the offence of homicide has been completed.
R v Blaue
Those to use violence must take their victim as they find them
R v Forrest and Forrest
The best evidence possible in the circumstances is adduced by proving the Victims age
R v Cottle
(Burden of proof - insanity)
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
R v Clark
(Insanity at trial)
The decision to an accused insanity is always for the jury and a verdict inconsistent with medical evidence is not necessarily unreasonable.
But where there is unchallenged medical evidence is supported by the surrounding facts a jury’s verdict must be founded on that evidence that shows the accused did not and had not been able to know that his act was morally wrong
R v Codere
[cordere –> recode –> nature]
[Nature and quality]
The nature and quality of the act means the physical character of the at. It does not involve the accused moral perception nor his knowledge of the moral quality of the act.
Thus a person who slices a womans throat thinking it as a load of bread, does does not know the nature and quality of his act.
