Fatal Crimes against the person Homicide Flashcards
Sutherland v HMA 1994
’ … consent cannot turn a criminal act into sth which is not criminal. The criminality of the act in this case must be judged from its potential for harm to the public, not its potential to injure, those who committed it. It makes no difference to its criminality that in the event, it was only those who participated in it who sustained injury’ [69]. Both men put a fire one of them stay in house and died. (attempt to defraud by setting the fire and culpable homicide)appeal refused
HMA v Rutherford 1947
Accused was walking the victim home through an empty park when the victim supposedly requested that the accused strangle her with his tie. The accused tried to say this consent made the murder legal however the courts disagreed. Consent is not a defence to murder. Lord Justice-Clerk Cooper directed the jury that, if life was taken under circumstances which would otherwise infer guilt … the attitude of the victim … was irrelevant’ [70],the crime does not cease to be murder merely because the victim has consented, or even has urged the commission of the deed; (3) that, where violence is used and results in fatal consequences, the crime cannot be merely the crime of assault; (4) that the essence of murder is that the accused should have acted deliberately with intent to kill, or at least with reckless indifference as to the consequences of his violence upon his victim; and (5) that in the present case their verdict must be one of culpable homicide unless it was established to their satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt that the accused, when compressing the woman’s throat, was acting with the intent above defined.
McCulskey v HMA 1989
(ACTUS REUS - HOMICIDE) the accused was charge and convicted of causing death by reckless driving was held to be relevant by the court of appeal. The court took view that life started before birth at some point, whereas a child becomes a legal person at the moment of birth so that there is disconnect between those two views about when life begins.
HMA v Purcell 2008
(ACTUS REUS - HOMICIDE) The accused had been driving his car recklessly and hit and killed a young boy. In its opinion, the court held that although it was a statutory offence, the common law charge of culpable homicide or perhaps murder would also be competent where the facts of case could show a charge could be leveled against the accused
Drury v HMA 2001
(MENS REA, MURDER) a man who hit his ex partner in back of the head with a claw hammer and in his defense he pled provocation. The court revertered to Hume’s words ‘wicked intention’ in murder cases where the defence is that of self-defence or provocation or diminished responsibility ie there must be a wicked intention to kill not merely an intention to kill.
Cawthrone v HMA 1968
(MENS REA - MURDER)firing gun through locked door = wicked recklessness = attempted murder thus no requirement for inference of intention to kill to secure a conviction
Hume’s requirements per wicked recklessness
(1) The accused meant to perpetrate some great and outrageous bodily harm (2) The harm inflicted might well have resulted in death (3) The harm inflicted showed absolute or utter indifference as to whether victim lived or died
Petto v HMA 2009
(MENS REA - MURDER) man set fire to the floor, causing explosion and the spread of fire throughtout the block flats killing one of the residents” recklessness which is so gross that it indicates a state of mind which falls to be treated as being as wicked and depraved as the state of mind of a deliberate killer” [512]
HMA v Fraser 1920
also art and part,robbing a man, he died from injuries” In attempting or perpetrating a crime, a person uses serious and reckless violance which may cause death, without any consideration of what the result of that use of violance may be, and if that violance results in death, that person is guilty of murder although he had no deliberate intention to kill but where the violence used is very slight, and the death is of the nature of nuiscance, the intention of the accused may be taken into account in determining whether the crime amounts to murder” [62]
Hume Culpable Homicide
Hume 4 distinct categories: (1) assault which results in death, but there is no inference of intention or wicked recklessness (2) death results from an unlawful act where mens rea of recklessness is proved (3) death occurs in performance of a lawful act, recklessly committed (Purcell) (4) accused has mens rea for murder, but mitigating circumstances apply ie provocation; diminished responsibility (Galbraith) (Involuntary and voluntary)
Bird v HMA 1952
(CULPABLE HOMICIDE, THIN SKULL RULE)The man suspect a woman of stealing. He went after her and when she was getting to the car, he grabbed her. She had preexisting heart condition, she collapsed and died from shock. “[it is not a] defence that the victim was an old person, an infirm person, or a person that suffered from a bad heart, and that if he had been young and healthy the consequences would not have happened.”
HMA v Purcell 2008
(CULPABLE HOMICIDE) (not murder, murder requires death to be caused via (wicked) intention to kill or by an act intended to cause physical injury and displaying a wicked disregard to fatal consequences. Accused charged with murder of 10yo boy who, while crossing road at pedestrian crossing, was struck and killed by car driven by accused.
Held: Circumstances of case did not satisfy requirement of murder of intention to cause physical injury. No evidence that accused had driven at the victim intending to hit him.
Transco v HMA 2004
(CULPABLE HOMICIDE) explosion (gas transporter), circumstances of explosion
In the case, a public gas transporter was charged with breaking the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 s.3 and s.33(1) in respect to a gas explosion, which resulted in the death of four people. It was held that Transco had “shown a complete and utter disregard for the public,” The court ruled that it was possible to prosecute for culpable homicide; However, it is possible to convict of culpable homicide only if the court could identify an individual or group of individuals being a directing mind in the company; therefore, the charges of culpable homicide were irrelevant and subsequently dismissed. The company was later prosecuted on the charge of health and safety and fined £15m.[citation needed]
This case, along with others of this type paved the way for major legislative changes. This is area is now governed by the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007.
Mathieson v HMA 1981
(CULPABLE HOMICIDE) set fire to some paint, building occupied by older residents. Fire spread to the building 4 people killed. Charged with culpable homicide.Appeal. Appeal against conviction dismissed
Sutherland v HMA 1994
(CULPABLE HOMICIDE) set fire to building to defraud insurance company, person helping him burnt to death in fire, convicted of culpable homicide
