Culpability Flashcards
Under s160 Crimes Act 1961 what are the five ways in which homicide is considered culpable?
(a) By any unlawful act; or
(b) By an omission without lawful excuse to perform/observe any legal duty; or
(c) By both combined; or
(d) By causing that person by threats or fear of violence, or by deception, to do an act which causes his death; or
(e) By willfully frightening a child under the age of 16 years or a sick person.
Define ‘Homicide’
Homicide is the killing of a human being by another, directly or indirectly, by any means whatsoever (s158 Crimes Act 1961).
Homicide must be culpable to be an offence.
Is it possible for an organisation to be convicted of a culpable homicide? Explain.
Because the killing must be done by a human being, an organisation cannot be convicted as a principal offender (Murray Wright Ltd).
However, they may be charged as a party to manslaughter (not murder, because this is punishable by life imprisonment).
At what point does a child become a ‘human being’ for the purposes of culpable homicide?
Under the Crimes Act a child becomes a human being when it has proceeded in a living state from the body of its mother. It is immaterial whether it has breathed, has independent circulation or whether the umbilical cord has been severed. (s159 Crimes Act 1961)
The killing of such a child is homicide if it dies in consequences of injuries received before, during or after birth. (s159 Crimes Act 1961)
Define ‘unlawful act’
A breach of any Act, regulation, rule or bylaw. (s2 Crimes Act 1961)
To 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 y Myatt)
What is the causal link required for an omission to be homicide?
An omission will only amount to homicide where the death would not have occurred if the defendant had performed their duty and the omission was a “substantial and operative cause of death.”
What are three legal duties in the Crimes Act?
s151: Provide the necessaries and protect from injury a vulnerable adult.
s152: Provide necessaries and protect from injury to your charges when you are a parent or guardian.
s153: Provide necessaries as an employer.
s155: Use reasonable knowledge and skill when performing dangerous acts, such as surgery.
s156: Take precautions when in charge of dangerous things, such as machinery.
s157: Avoid omissions that will endanger life.
What is only circumstance in which someone is responsible for a death caused by ‘influence on the mind’?
By willfully frightening a child under the age of 16 years or a sick person. (s160(e))
Under what circumstances would a person be culpable for the death of another person during a lawful game or sports contest?
If the act was likely to cause serious injury, they will be guilty of manslaughter.
What are the three things that should first be proved in any homicide inquiry?
- Death occurred (can be proved circumstantially),
- The deceased is the person who has been killed,
- The killing is culpable.
Under what circumstances can someone consent to their own death?
They cannot - s63 Crimes Act 1961.
Can the Crown prove homicide without a body?
Yes. Death needs to be proved by such circumstances that render it morally certain and leave no ground for reasonable doubt. Murder must be the only rational hypothesis. (R v Horry)
How does a dying victim refusing medical treatment effect the culpability of the offender who caused the fatal injury?
It doesn’t. Under s165 everyone who by any act or omission causes the death of another person kills that person, even though death from that cause might have been prevented by resorting to proper means.
In R v Blaue it was found that those who use violence must take their victim as they find them.
If treatment applied in good faith kills the patient, how does this effect the culpability of the offender who caused the injury requiring treatment?
It doesn’t. Under s166 everyone who causes bodily injury of a dangerous nature to another person, and that person dies, has killed that person, even where the immediate cause of death is treatment applied in good faith.
If the treatment is itself a major departure from the standard required then it could be considered an intervening act that cuts the causal chain between the offender’s assault and death.
How serious does the breach of a legal duty have to be for the subject to be considered criminally responsible?
The breach must be a ‘major departure’ from the standard of care expected.
