Case Law (must know) Flashcards
Murray Wright Ltd
Because the killing must be done by a human being, an organisation cannot be convicted as a principle offender.
(For murder that is, for manslaughter they can)
R v Tomars
Threats/fear of violence/deception
- Was the deceased threatened by, in fear of, or deceived by the def?
- If so, did such threats/fear/deception cause the def to do the act that caused their death?
- Was the act a natural consequence of the actions of the def? Ie a reasonable and responsible person in the def’s position could reasonably have foreseen the consequences?
- Did these foreseeable actions contribute in a significant way to their death?
R v Myatt
Before a breach of any act/regulation etc would be an unlawful act 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.
R v Horry
Re proof of death/ie a body is not located
death should be probable 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.
Cameron v R
Recklessness is est if:
A) the defendants recognised there was a real possibility that
i) his actions would bring about the proscribed result
ii) the proscribed circumstances existed, and
B) having regard to that risk those actions were unreasonable
R v Piri
Recklessness involves conscious, deliberate risk taking. The degree of risk of death foreseen by the accused must be more than negligible or remote.
The accused must recognise a “real or substantial risk” that death would be caused.
R v Desmond
(killing in pursuit of an unlawful object)
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
Ie blowing up a prison wall to liberate prisoners
R v Murphy
(Attempt to commit murder)
when proving an attempt to commit an offence it must be shown that the accused intention was to commit the substantive offence. Ie for attempted murder the crown must establish an actual intent to kill.
R v Harpur
(Several acts together may constitute an attempt)
The court may have regard to the conduct viewed cumulatively up to the point when the conduct in question stops…. The def conduct may be considered in its entirety. Considering how much remains to be done is always relevant though not determinative
R v Mane
Accessory after the fact
For a person to be an accessory the offence must be complete at the time of criminal involvement. One cannot be convicted of being an accessory after the fact of murder, when the actus reus of the 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
R v Forrest and Forrest
The best evidence possible in the circumstances should be adduced by the prosecution in proof of the victims age
R v Cottle
(Burden of proof re insanity)
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
R v Clark
(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 surrounding facts, a jury’s verdict must be founded on that evidence which in this case shows that the accused did not know his act was morally wrong.
R v Codere
Nature and quality of the act 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.
Ie a person who is so deluded that he believes he is cutting a loaf of bread when it’s in fact his wife’s throat, would not know the nature and quality of the act.
