case law Flashcards
Murray Wright Ltd
Because the killing must be done by a human being an organization cannot be convicted as a principal.
R v Myatt (unlawful act)
Before a breach of any act would be an unlawful act, it must be an act likely to do harm to the deceased or some class of persons whom he was one.
R v Lee (reasonable person)
would a reasonable person in the shoes of the defendant know the risk of harm existed, some harm means more than trivial
R v Tomars (Threats)
- Was the decease threatened by in fear or deceived by the defendant
- Did the threat cause the deceased to do that act that caused there death
- Was the act a natural consequence of the actions of the defendant in the sense a reasonable and responsible person in the person’s defendant at the time could have foreseen the consequence
- Did the foreseeable actions of the victim contribute in a significant way to his death.
R v Horry (no body)
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 compelling that a jury can be convinced that there is no other rational hypothesis than murder.
Allows for when no body is found.
R v Piri (recklessness)
Recklessness involves conscious and deliberate risk taking. The degree of risk before the death must be more than negligible or remote, accused must recognise a real or substantial risk that death would be caused.
R v Desmond
Not only must the object be unlawful but 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 (attempted murder)
When proving an attempt to commit an offence it must be shown that the accused intention was to commit the substantive offence. Eg in a case of attempted murder it is necessary for the crown to prove intent to kill
R v Harpur
Court may have regard to the conduct viewed cumulatively up to the point it stops. The defendant’s conduct may be considered in its entirety.
R v Mane ( Accessory)
For a person to be an accessory the offence must be complete at the time of the criminal involvement
One cannot be convicted of accessory after the fact to murder if the actus rea of murder had been completed but the offence had not been completed and the person had not died.
Newbury and jones (4 points to prove manslaughter)
Defendant must do an intentional act
The act must be unlawful
The act must be dangerous
The act must cause death.
R v Blaue (victim
those who use violence must take their victims as they find them.
Liability depends on mens rea not victims subsequent actions
R v tarei (lfie support)
Held that withdrawal of life support is not treatment under s166. To withdraw does not cause death but removes the possibility of extending a persons life through artificial means.
R v Rapira
Child must know the act was wrong but need not understand it was seriously wrong.
R V FORREST AND FORREST
Best evidence of age must be adduced
Produce certificate, and state what day has birthday, and first age of school
Mother can give evidence
R v Green
Court held that insanity is a matter for the defence to raise and the prosecution is prohibited from adducing evidence of insanity even if the accused has sought acquittal because of some state of mind not amounting to insanity.
Judge may also put the issue before the jury to decide.
R v Cottle (degree of proof)
As to degree of proof, it is sufficient if the plea is established to the satisfaction of the jury on the balance of probabilities without excluding all reasonable doub
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 verdict must be founded on evidence which in this case shows that the accused did not and had been unable tyo know his act was morally wrong
R v Warren
Drove a car dangerously killing 2, thought that he was driving a time capsule, held he did not understand the nature and quality of the act and that his bipolar was a disease of the mind
R v Cottle (elipsey)
accepted that epilepsy although physical could amount to a disease of the mind.
R V CODERE
Nature and quality means the physical character of the act. The phrase does not involve 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.
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 do bodily movements
Common law rule is there is no liability for such conduct.
R v hudson
Two girls committed perjury to avoid threats of injury, compulsion defence was permitted in the circumstances as police could not guarantee the girls continuous protection.
R v Joyce
compulsion must be made by a person who is present when the offence is committed
