Case Law: Homicide law Flashcards
Murray Wright Ltd
Because the killing must be done by a human being, an organisation cannot be convicted as a principle offender.
R v Myatt
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 peoples of whom he was one.
R v Tomars
(threats / fear of violence / deception)
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 which caused their death?
3: Was the act a natural consequence of the actions of the defendant, in the sense that reasonable and responsible people int he defendant’s position at the time could have reasonably foreseen the consequences?
4: Did these foreseeable actions of the victim contribute in a significant way to his death?
R v Horry
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.
R v Harney
Recklessness means the conscious and deliberate taking of an unjustified risk. In NZ it involves proof that the consequences complained of could well happen, together with an intention to continue the course of conduct regardless of the risk.
R v Piri
Recklessness here 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
R v Desmond
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 of causing death.
R v Murphy
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 the case of attempted murder it is necessary for the crown to establish an actual intent to kill.
(Therefore attempted murder is hardest charge to prove)
R v Harpur
The court may have regard to the conduct viewed cumulatively up to the point where the conduct in question stops…the defendant’s conduct may be considered in its entirety.
Considering how much remains to be done is always relevant, though not determinative
R v Mane
For a person to be an accessory the offence must be complete at the time fo the criminal involvement. Oe 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.
R v Blaue
Those who use violence must take their victims as they find them.
