Case Law Flashcards
Murray White Ltd
Culpability of Organisations
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
Section 160(2)(a) CA61
Before a breach of any Act, regulation, rule or bylaw would be an unlawful act under s160 for the purpose of culpable homicide, it must be an act likely to do harm to the deceased.
Act, Regulations, Bylaws blah blah Myatt
R v Tomars
Threats, Fear of Violence and Deception
Section 160(2)(d) CA61
Formulates the issues in the following way:
- Was the deceased threatened by, or fear of or deceived by the defendant?
- If they were, did such threats, fear or deception cause the deceased to do the act that caused their death?
- 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 foreseen the consequence?
- Did these foreseeable actions of the victim contribute in a significant way to his death?
Bandit Tomars
R v Horry
Where Body is not Located - Proof of Death
Death should be proved by circumstances that it is both morally certain and leave no ground for reasonable doubt - the circumstantial evidence should be so compelling as to convince the jury that upon no rational hypothesis other than the murder has occurred.
Proving Horry died
R v Piri
Recklessness
Recklessness involves a conscious, deliberate risk taken. The degree of risk of death 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.
Reckless Piri
R v Desmond
Killing in Pursuit of an Unlawful Objective
Section 167(d) CA61
Not only must the objective 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.
Blow up the Prison Desmond!
R v Murphy
Intent Must be Established in Attempted Offence
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.
Attempting to Murphy
R v Harpur
Several acts together may constitute an attempt:
The defendant’s conduct may be viewed cumulatively up to the point when the conduct in question stops and may be considered in it’s entirety. Considering how much remains to be done is always relevant, though not determinative.
R v Mane
Accessory After the Fact to Murder
For a person to be an accessory the acts done by the person must be after the completion of the offence. One cannot be convicted of being an accessory after the fact of murder when the acts reus of the alleged offence was wholly completed before the offence of homicide was complete.
Mane, give us a hand after!
R v Blaue
Causing Death that might have been Preventable
Section 165 CA61
Those who use violence must take their victims as they find them.
Stop Blaue from dying!
R v Forrest and Forrest
Proof of Age
The best evidence possible in the circumstances should be adduced by the prosecution in proof of the victim’s age.
In practice, this generally involving producing the victim’s birth certificate along with independent witness identifying the victim as the person named on the certificate.
R v Cottle
Proof for Insanity
As to degree of proof, it is sufficient if insanity is established to the satisfaction of the jury on the balance of probabilities without necessarily excluding all reasonable doubt.
Coco Cottle!
R v Clark
Decision as to Accused’s Insanity
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 found on that evidence, which in this case shows that the accused did not to know that his act was morally wrong.
Deciding if Clark is insane
R v Codere
Nature and Quality of the Act
The nature and quality of the act [means the physical character of the act]. The phrase does not involve any consideration on the [accused’s moral perception] nor his [knowledge of moral quality] of the act. Thus a person who is so deluded that [he cuts a woman’s throat believing that he is cutting loaf of bread] would [not know the nature and quality of his act].
Oh dear Codere… Cutting Off People’s Heads
R v Cottle
Automatism
Doing something without knowledge of it and without memory of having done it - a temporary eclipse of the consciousness that nevertheless leaves the person affected able to exercise bodily movements.
Autobot Cottle Bot
