Case law homicide

Question 1

Murray Wright Ltd (Organisation)

Answer 1

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.

Question 2

R V Tomars (Fear)

Answer 2

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 cause their death
3. Was the act a natural consequences of the actions of the defendant, in the sense that reasonable and responsible people in the defendant 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?

Question 3

R V Myatt (Unlawful act Section 160)

Answer 3

(Before a breach of any Act, regulation or bylaw would be an unlawful act under section 160 for the purpose of culpable homicide) it must be an act likely to do harm to the deceased or to some class of person of whom he was one.

Question 4

R V Horry (Death)

Answer 4

Death should be provable by such circumstances as render it morally certain and leave no grounds 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.

Question 5

R V Harney (Recklessness)

Answer 5

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.

Question 6

R V Piri (Recklessness)

Answer 6

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.

Question 7

R V Desmond (Object)

Answer 7

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.

Question 8

R V Murphy (Attempts)

Answer 8

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.

Question 9

R V Harpur (Conduct)

Answer 9

The court may have regard to the conduct viewed cumulatively up to the point when the conduct in question stops the defendant conduct may be consider in its entirety. Considering how much remains to be done is always relevant, though not determinative.

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 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.

Question 11

R V Blaue (Violence)

Answer 11

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

• Further

Provides a clear example of this piece of legislation in practice The victim (a Jehovah’s witness) had been stabbed but refused to accept a blood transfusion on the ground that to do so would be contrary to her religious belief, dispute a warning that she would die, she persisted in her refusal and in fact died the following day. The cause of death was bleeding into a pleura cavity cause by the stabbing. An apparel against the conviction of manslaughter, on the ground that her refusal to have a blood transfusion was unreasonable and broke the chain of causation between the stabbing and her death was dismissed.