Case Law

Question 1

R v Myatt

Answer 1

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.

(Unlawful Act)

Question 2

R v Tomars

Answer 2

Formulates the issue 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 by the defendant, in the sense that reasonable and responsible people in the defendants 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?

(Threats, fear of violence and deception)

Question 3

R v Horry

Answer 3

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.

(Where body is not located)

Question 4

R v Harney

Answer 4

Recklessness means the conscious and deliberate taking of an unjustified risk. In New Zealand it involves proof that the consequences complained of could well happen, together with an intention to continue the course of conduct regardless of risk

(Recklessness)

Question 5

R v Piri

Answer 5

Recklessness 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.

(Recklessness)

Question 6

R v Desmond

Answer 6

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

(Killing in pursuit of an unlawful object)

Question 7

R v Murphy

Answer 7

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

(Intent)

Question 8

R v Forrest and Forrest

Answer 8

The best evidence possible in the circumstances should be adduced by the prosecution in proof of the victims age

Question 9

R v Cottle

Answer 9

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.

(burden of proof for insanity)

Question 10

R v Codere

Answer 10

The nature and quality of the acts 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.

(Insanity, nature and quality)

Question 11

R v Cottle

Answer 11

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

(Automatism)

Question 12

R v Joyce

Answer 12

The Court of Appeal decided that the compulsion must be made by a person who is present when the offence is committed

(Compulsion or duress)