Case Law (Part 1)

Question 1

Murray Wright Ltd.

(Organisations as pronciple offenders)

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 Myatt

(Unlawful Acts)

Answer 2

[Before a breach of any Act, regulation or bylaw would be an unlawful act under s 160 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.

Question 3

R v Tomars

(Death due to threats or fears of violence)

Answer 3

R v Tomars 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 caused their death?
3. 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 have foreseen the consequences?
4. Did these foreseeable actions of the victim contribute in a [significant] way to his death?

Question 4

R v Horry

(Proving Death)

Answer 4

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.

Question 5

Cameron v R

(Establishing Recklessness)

Answer 5

Recklessness is established if:

(a) the defendant recognised that there was a real possibility that:
(i) his or her actions would bring about the proscribed result; and/or
(ii) that the proscribed circumstances existed; and
(b) having regard to that risk those actions were unreasonable.

Question 6

R v Piri

(Recklessess)

Answer 6

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:

Question 7

R v Desmond

(Unlawful 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

(Proving Attempt)

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 re Attempt)

Answer 9

[The Court may] have regard to the conduct viewed cumulatively up to the point when 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.

Question 10

R v Mane

(Accessory ATF)

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

(Violent offenders)

Answer 11

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