case law

Question 1

Murray Wright Ltd

Answer 1

Because the killing must be done by a human being an organization cannot be convicted as a principal.

Question 2

R v Myatt (unlawful act)

Answer 2

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.

Question 3

R v Lee (reasonable person)

Answer 3

would a reasonable person in the shoes of the defendant know the risk of harm existed, some harm means more than trivial

Question 4

R v Tomars (Threats)

Answer 4

1. Was the decease threatened by in fear or deceived by the defendant
2. Did the threat cause the deceased to do that act that caused there death
3. 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
4. Did the foreseeable actions of the victim contribute in a significant way to his death.

Question 5

R v Horry (no body)

Answer 5

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.

Question 6

R v Piri (recklessness)

Answer 6

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.

Question 7

R v Desmond

Answer 7

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.

Question 8

R v murphy (attempted murder)

Answer 8

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

Question 9

R v Harpur

Answer 9

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.

Question 10

R v Mane ( Accessory)

Answer 10

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.

Question 11

Newbury and jones (4 points to prove manslaughter)

Answer 11

Defendant must do an intentional act
The act must be unlawful
The act must be dangerous
The act must cause death.

Question 12

R v Blaue (victim

Answer 12

those who use violence must take their victims as they find them.

Liability depends on mens rea not victims subsequent actions

Question 13

R v tarei (lfie support)

Answer 13

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.

Question 14

R v Rapira

Answer 14

Child must know the act was wrong but need not understand it was seriously wrong.

Question 15

R V FORREST AND FORREST

Answer 15

Best evidence of age must be adduced
Produce certificate, and state what day has birthday, and first age of school
Mother can give evidence

Question 16

R v Green

Answer 16

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.

Question 17

R v Cottle (degree of proof)

Answer 17

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

Question 18

R v Clark

Answer 18

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

Question 19

R v Warren

Answer 19

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

Question 20

R v Cottle (elipsey)

Answer 20

accepted that epilepsy although physical could amount to a disease of the mind.

Question 21

R V CODERE

Answer 21

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.

Question 22

R V COTTLE (Automatism)

Answer 22

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.

Question 23

R v hudson

Answer 23

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.

Question 24

R v Joyce

Answer 24

compulsion must be made by a person who is present when the offence is committed

Question 25

POLICE V LAVELLE

Answer 25

It is permissible for UC 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 26

R v nazif

Answer 26

held that it is up to the prosecution to prove someone did not consent, only if evidence from which consent can reasonably be inferred

Question 27

Cameron v R

Answer 27

Recklessness is established if

the defendant recognised that
the proscribed circumstances existed
the defendants actions would bring about the proscribed result
in regard to the risk the defendants actions were unreasonable.