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 reasonably have foreseen the consequences ?
- Did these foreseeable actions of the Victim contribute in a significant way to their death?
R v Horry
Death should be provable by such circumstances that leave no ground for Reasonable Doubt, that the circumstantial evidence should be so 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 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.
It must be shown that his knowledge accompanied 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.
The defendant’s conduct may be considered in it’s entirety. 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 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 preponderance of probabilities without necessarily 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. But where unchallenged medical evidence is supported by the surrounding facts a jury’s verdict must be founded on that evidence which in this case shows that that the accused did not and had been unable to know the act was morally wrong
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
