Caselaw Flashcards
Murray Wright Ltd [1970]
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
R v Myatt
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.
R v Tomars
formulates the issues in the following way:
- Was the deceased threatened by, in fear of or deceived by the defendant?
- If they were, did such threats, fear or deception cause the deceased to do the act that cause their death?
- Was the act a natural consequence of the actions of the defendant, in the sense that reasonable and responsible people in the defendants position at the time could reasonably have foreseen the consequences?
- Did these foreseeable actions of the victim contribute in a significant way to his death?
R v Harry
Death should be provable by such circumstances as render it morally certain and leave no ground for reasonable doubt - 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.
Cameron v R
subjective/objective
Recklessness is established if:
a) the defendant recognised that there was a real possibility that
i) his or her actions would bring upon the proscribed result and/or
ii) that the proscribed circumstances existed and
b) having regard to that risk those actions were unreasonable
a= completely subjective
b= subjective and objective
R v Piri
Recklessness involves a conscious, deliberate risk taking. The degree of risk of death foreseen by the accused must be more that negligible or remote. They must recognise a “real and 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 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.
Example: attempted murder, crown must prove intent to kill
R v Harpur
The court may have regard to the conduct viewed cumulatively up to the point where the conduct in question stops, conduct may be viewed 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 of the criminal involvement. One cannot be convicted of being an accessory after the fact or 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
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
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’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 the surrounding facts a jury’s verdict must be founded on that evidence which in this case shows that the accused did not and had been unable to know that his act was morally wrong.
R v Codere
The nature and quality of the act means the physical character of the act. The phrase does not involve any consideration of the accused’s moral perception nor his knowledge of the moral quality of the act. Thus a person who is so deluded that he cut’s a woman’s throat believing he is cutting a loaf of bread would not know the nature and quality of his act.
