Case Law Flashcards
Case Law: Organization being an offender
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:
Case Law: Unlawful Act
The common law requires that the act must be one that is likely to do harm or is inherently “dangerous’, as well as being unlawful. The leading case which confirms this is cited below.
R v Myatt
[Before a breach of any Act, regulation or bylaw would be an unlawful act under s160 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.
Thus, a breach of an electoral law, for example, would not suffice because although it is unlawful, it is not an act likely to do harm to the deceased nor is it an inherently dangerous act.
Case Law: Threats, fear of violence and deception resulting in death
R v Corbett
the Court identified that “the victim’s conduct must be such
that it could be reasonably foreseen, is proportionate to the threat, or is “within the ambit of reasonableness. Although the victim might do the wrong thing or act unwisely, it is sufficient if the reaction is “in the foreseeable range.”
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?
Case Law: Where a body is not located
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.
Case Law: Recklessness
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 to that risk those actions were unreasonable.
Case Law: Recklessness Death
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 recognize a “real or substantial risk” that death would be caused:
Case Law: Killing in pursuit of an unlawful object
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.
The classic example of a case coming under this provision is one in which death was caused by blowing up a prison wall to liberate prisoners.
Case Law: Proving an attempt
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:
Therefore, this requirement on the Crown means that attempted murder is one of the most difficult offences in the Crimes Act to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Case Law: Attempts
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.
Case Law: Accessory after the fact to murder
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.
Case Law: Preventable Death
R v Blaue
Those who use violence must take their victims as they find them.
Case Law: Proof of age
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.
Case Law: Burden of proof for insanity
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.
Case Law: Who decides if the accused is insane
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.
Case Law: Disease on the mind
R v Codere
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 that he is cutting a loaf of bread would not know the nature and quality of his act.
The test is that the defendant knew that their acts were morally wrong – they do not need to know that they were legally wrong. If someone cannot understand that their act is morally wrong, then they lack rational understanding.
In other words, they may acknowledge the result of society’s reasoning – that their actions are morally wrong – but they are unable to go through the reasoning process themselves.
