Case Laws Flashcards
Know this stuff
Murray Wright Ltd
Because the killing must be done by a human being an organisation cannot be convicted as a principal offender
R V Myatt
Before a breach of any act regulation or by law would be an unlawful act under section 160 it must be an act likely to do harm to the deceased
R V Tomars
- Was the deceased threatened by in fear of or deceived by the defendant?
- Did such threats fear or deception cause the deceased to do the act that caused the death?
- Was the act a natural consequence of the actions of the defendant in that reasonable and responsible people in the defendant’s position could have foreseen the consequences ?
- Did these foreseeable actions contribute to their death?
R v Horry
Death should be provable by such circumstances that leave no ground for Reasonable Doubt the circumstantial evidence should be so compelling as to convince a jury 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 consequence complained of could well happen together with an intention to continue the course of conduct regardless of risk
R v Piri
Recklessness involves a conscious deliberate risk taking the degree of risk of death foreseen by the accused under s 167 (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 the accused must know that his act is likely to cause death his knowledge must accompany the act causing death
R v Murphy
When proving an attempt to commit an offence it must be shown that the accused intention was to commit the substantive offence
R v Harpur
the court may have regard to the conduct viewed cumulatively up to the point when the conduct and question stops full stop the defendant’s conduct may be viewed in it’s entirety. how much remains to be done is relevant but not determinative
R v Mane
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 to murder when the actus reas was 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)
As to degree of proof it is sufficient if the plea is established to the satisfaction of the jury on a balance of probabilities without excluding all Reasonable Doubt
R v Clark
The decision as to an accused insanity is always for the jury a verdict inconsistent with medical evidence is not unreasonable. Where are unchallenged medical evidence is supported by the surrounding facts jurys verdict must be founded on that evidence
R v Codere
the nature and quality of the act means the physical character of the act it does not involve the accused moral perception nor his knowledge of the moral quality of the act
