Culpable Homicide Flashcards
Two critical factors (questions) to consider for a charge of murder:
Whether the offender intended to:
1. kill the person, or
2. cause bodily injury that the offender knew was likely to cause death.
If neither of these intentions can be proven the most likely charge is manslaughter
Homicide defined
s158
Homicide is the killing of a human being by another, directly or indirectly, by any means whatsoever
An organisations liability in murder?
In cases of manslaughter an organisation can be convicted as a party to the offence
In murder an organisation cannot be convicted as either a principal offender or a party (because the offence carries a mandatory life sentence)
Murray Wright Ltd
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
the killing of a child
s159
(1) a child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded in a living state from the body of its mother, whether it has breathed or not, and whether the navel string is severed or not
(2)the killing of such child is homicide if it dies in consequence on injuries received before, during, or after birth
s160 Culpable homicide
(1)Homicide may either be culpable or not culpable
(2) homicide is culpable when it consists of the killing of any person-
(a) by an unlawful act; or
(b) by an omission without lawful excuse to perform or 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 of an act which causes his death; or
(e) by wilfully frightening a child under the age of 16 or a sick person
Unlawful act definition
means any breach of any Act, regulation, rule, or bylaw
R v Myatt
Before any breach … would be an unlawful act, it must be an act likely to do harm to the deceased
[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 or to some class of persons of whom he was one
What was held in R v Lee?
- the act must be objectively dangerous
- “some” harm means “more than trivial” harm
section 150A
applies to any case where the unlawful act requires proof of negligence, or is a strict or absolute liability offence
s160(2)(b)
culpable homicide includes any death caused by an omission, without lawful excuse, to perform or observe any legal duty
covers cases where there is a lawful duty to act, or a duty of care
if death results from omission, may be convicted of manslaughter/if requisite mens rea then murder
Legal duty definition an examples
Legal duty refers to those duties that have been embodied in statute:
- provide the necessaries and protect from injury (s151)
- provide the necessaries and protect from injury to your charges when you are a parent or guardian (s152)
- provide necessaries as an employer (s153)
- use reasonable knowledge and skill when performing dangerous acts, such as surgery (s155)
- take precautions when i charge of dangerous things/machinery (s156)
- avoid omissions that will endanger life (s157)
Requisite causal connection for an omission
Death would not have occurred as and when it did if the defendant had performed the duty in question
must have been a substantial and operative cause of death
s160(2)(c)
unlawful acts and omission to perform a legal duty are applicable to the same act
e.g. reckless driving kills pedestrian
160(2)(d)
- guilty of culpable murder if cause the victim (by threats, fear of violence, or deception) to do an act that results in the victims death
- must prove that the fear of violence was well founded
- do not need to show that the deceased’s action was the only means of escape
R V Corbett
applies to threats/fear violence/deception 160(2)(d)
“the victims conduct must be such that it could be reasonably foreseen, is proportionate to the threat, or is within the ambit of reasonableness. Although the victim might do the wrong this or act unwisely, it is sufficient if the reaction is within the foreseeable range”
R v Tomars
In relation to threats fears deception formulates the issues in the following way:
1. Was the deceased threatened by, in fear of or deceived by the defendant?
2. if they were, did such threats, fear or deception cause the deceased to do the act that caused their death?
3. Was the act a natural consequence of the actions of the defendant, in the sense that reasonable and responsible people in the defendant’s position at the time could reasonably have foreseen the consequences?
4. Did these foreseeable actions of the victim contribute in a [significant] way to his death?
s160(2)(e)
May be caused by any act that frightens the child or sick person
Must be wilfully frightening (intending to frighten, or at least be reckless as to this)
s163
Killing by influence on the mind
e.g. mentally torturing someone
Consent to death
s63
Nobody has the right to consent to being killed
Death from lawful games or contests
(such as boxing, wrestling, football)
Death from injuries received usually treated as non-culpable homicide
however if death is by an act that is likely to cause serious injury, will be guilty of manslaughter
Proof of death
must prove:
- death occurred
- deceased is identified as the person who has been killed
- the killing is culpable
R v Horry
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 that upon no rational hypothesis other than murder can the facts be accounted for
Exception of justification (non-culpable homicide) examples
- homicide committed in self defense (s48)
- homicide committed to prevent suicide or commission of an offence which would be likely to cause immediate and serious injury to the person or property of any-one (s41)
