Culpable Homicide Flashcards
Legislation - Homicide s158
Homicide is the killing of a human being by another, directly or indirectly, by any means whatsoever.
Case law - Murray Wright Ltd
Because the killing must be done by a human being, an organisation such as a food company can’t be convicted as a principal offender.
Can an organisation or company be held criminally liable or be convicted for murder or manslaughter?
Murder - An organisation can’t be convicted as a principal offender or a party to the offence, because the offence carries a mandatory life sentence.
Manslaughter - An organisation can be convicted as a party to the offence s66(1).
When does a child become a human being s159?
(1) A child becomes a human being when it has completely proceeded in a living state from the body of its mother, whether it has breathed or not, whether it has an independent circulation or not, and whether the naval string is severed or not.
(2) The killing of the child is homicide if it dies in consequences of injuries received b/d/a birth.
What does culpable homicide mean?
Culpable homicide means the killing is blameworthy.
It includes murder, manslaughter or infanticide.
What constitutes culpable homicide s160?
(1) Homicide may be either culpable or not culpable.
(2) Homicide is culpable when it consists in the killing of any person:
• (a) By an unlawful act
• (b) By an omission without lawful excuse to perform or observe any legal duty
• (c) By both combined
• (d) By causing that person by threats or fear of violence, or by deception, to do an act which causes his death
• (e) By wilfully frightening a child under 16 years or a sick person.
(3) Except as provided in s178 of this Act, culpable homicide is either murder or manslaughter.
(4) Homicide that is not culpable is not an offence.
Definition - An unlawful act
It means a breach of any Act, regulation, rule or bylaw.
Case law - R v Myatt
Unlawful Act
[Before a breach of any Act, regulation or bylaw would be an unlawful act under s160 for the purposes of culpable homicide]
It must be an act likely to do harm to the deceased.
Case law - R v Tomars
What is the case law which formulates the issues around threats, fear of violence and deception?
- Was the deceased threatened by, in fear of or deceived by the defendant?
- If so, did such threats, fear or deception cause the deceased to do the act causing their death?
- Was the act a natural consequence of the actions of the defendant, in the sense that a responsible person in the defendant’s position at the time could reasonably have foreseen the consequences?
- Did those foreseeable actions of the victim contribute in a significant way to his death?
Definition - Wilfully frightening
“Intending to frighten, or at least be reckless as to this.”
Legislation - Killing by influence on the mind s163
No one is criminally responsible for the killing of another by any influence on the mind alone,
Except by wilfully frightening a child under 16 or a sick person,
Nor for the killing of another by any disorder or disease arising from such influence,
Except by wilfully frightening any such child as aforesaid or a sick person.
What is the legal view of consent to death?
No one has the right to consent to being killed.
Their consent doesn’t affect the criminal responsibility of anyone else involved in the killing.
Case law - R v Horry
What is the case law where a body is not located?
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 there’s no rational hypothesis other than murder.
