Case Law Flashcards
*** 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
*** 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?
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.
*** 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.
Cameron v R
Recklessness is established if the defendant recognised that there was a real possibility that:
his or her actions would bring about the proscribed
result; and/or
that the proscribed circumstances existed; and
having regard to that risk those actions were unreasonable.
*** 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
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.
*** 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
*** 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.
*** 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.
*** R v Blaue
Those who use violence must take their victims as they find them.
R v Forrest and Forrest
The best evidence possible in the circumstances should be adduced by the
prosecution in proof of the victim’s age.
R v Cottle (Burden of proof)
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.
** R v Cottle (Automatism)
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.
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.
