Homicide 013 Flashcards
List the three main types of culpable homicide.
Murder, manslaughter, infanticide
What are the critical factors to consider when deciding whether a charge should be murder or manslaughter?
Whether the offender intended to:
- kill the person or
- cause bodily injury that the offender knew was likely to cause death
s158, CA 1961 (Must Know)(Hd)
s158 Homicide defined
Homicide is the killing of a human being by another, directly or indirectly, by any means whatsoever.
Can an organisation be convicted of murder or manslaughter?
An organisation can be convicted as a party to manslaughter (s66(1)).
For murder, an organisation cannot be convicted either as a principal offender or a party because the offence carries a mandatory life sentence.
Murray Wright Ltd (case law)
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.
When does a child become a human being according to s159(1), CA 1961? (Must Know)
159 Killing of a child
(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, whether it has an independent circulation or not, and whether the navel string is severed or not.
s160(2), CA 1961 (Must Know)
(UaOBFoVWf)
s160 Culpable homicide
(2) Homicide is culpable when it consists in 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 do an act which causes his death or
(e) By wilfully frightening a child under the age of 16 years or a sick person.
R v Myatt (Breach)
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.
Explain the test contained in s150A(2), CA 1961. (Nice to know)(O)
The omission or unlawful act is a major departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person to whom that legal duty applies or who performs that unlawful act.
What are the four questions posed in R v Tomars relating to s160(2)(d)? (Must Know) (TCNF)
- 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 caused their death?
- Was the act a natural consequence of the actions of the defendant, in the sense that a reasonable and responsible person in the defendant’s 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?
In the case of a death from lawful games or contests in what situation would a contestant possibly be found guilty of manslaughter?
If the contestant causes the death of another by an act that is likely to cause serious injury.
What must be done to establish/prove the death? (DoDidKc)
Must prove:
- death occurred
- deceased is identified as the person who has been killed
- the killing is culpable
R v Horry (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 that upon no rational hypothesis other than murder can the facts be accounted for.
s167, CA 1961 (Must Know) (MD)
167 Murder defined
Culpable homicide is murder in each of the following cases:
(a) If the offender means to cause the death of the person killed:
(b) If the offender means to cause to the person killed any bodily injury that is known to the offender to be likely to cause death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not:
(c) If the offender means to cause death, or, being so reckless as aforesaid, means to cause such bodily injury as aforesaid to one person, and by accident or mistake kills another person, though he does not mean to hurt the person killed:
(d) If the offender for any unlawful object does an act that he knows to be likely to cause death, and thereby kills the person, though he may have desired that his object should be effected without hurting anyone.
What are the two types of intention in an offence?
An intention to commit the act and an intention to get a specific result.
If you are charging an offender with murder under s167, what must you show in relation to the offender’s intent to cause death? (ILR)
The defendant:
- intended to cause death or
- knew that death was likely to ensue, or
- was reckless that death would ensue
What needs to be established to show that the defendant’s state of mind meets the provisions of s167(b)? Murder Defined (Must Know)(IDR)
That the defendant:
- intended to cause bodily injury to the deceased
- knew the injury was likely to cause death
- was reckless as to whether death ensued or not
R v Piri
Recklessness (here) involves a conscious, deliberate risk taking. The degree of risk of death foreseen by the accused under either s167(b) or (d) must be more than negligible or remote. The accused must recognise a “real or substantial risk” that death would be caused.
R v Desmond (Must Know)(UA)
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.
s66(2), CA 1961 (Nice to know)
S66 Parties to offences
(2) Where two or more persons form a common intention to prosecute any unlawful purpose, and to assist each other therein, each of them is a party to every offence committed by any one of them in the prosecution of the common purpose if the commission of that offence was known to be a probable consequence of the prosecution of the common purpose.
s66(1), CA 1961 (Nice to know)(COAI)
(1) Every one is a party to and guilty of an offence who—
(a) actually commits the offence; or
(b) does or omits an act for the purpose of aiding any person to commit the offence; or
(c) abets any person in the commission of the offence; or
(d) incites, counsels, or procures any person to commit the offence.
When charging someone as a party to murder under s66(1) or (2), what must be shown in regards to the secondary party’s knowledge? (nice to know)
It is not necessary to show that they knew the death was a probable consequence of carrying out the primary purpose. It must be shown that they knew it was a probable consequence that the principal might do an act that would, if death ensued, bring their conduct within the terms of s168.
S72 CA 1961 (Must Know)(Att)
S72 Attempts
(1)Every one who, having an intent to commit an offence, does or omits an act for the purpose of accomplishing his object, is guilty of an attempt to commit the offence intended, whether in the circumstances it was possible to commit the offence or not.
(2)The question whether an act done or omitted with intent to commit an offence is or is not only preparation for the commission of that offence, and too remote to constitute an attempt to commit it, is a question of law.
(3)An act done or omitted with intent to commit an offence may constitute an attempt if it is immediately or proximately connected with the intended offence, whether or not there was any act unequivocally showing the intent to commit that offence.
R v Murphy (Attemps/Intent)
When proving an attempt to commit an offence it must be shown that the accused’s intention was to commit the substantive offence. For example, in a case of attempted murder it is necessary for the Crown to establish an actual intent to kill.
Explain the term ‘sufficiently proximate’.
The defendant must have started to commit the full offence and have gone beyond the phase of mere preparation.
R v Harpur
The Court may have regard to the conduct viewed cumulatively up to the point when the conduct in question stops…the defendant’s conduct may be considered in its entirety. Considering how much remains to be done is always relevant, though not determinative.
What are the two questions suggested by Simester and Brookbanks as a test for proximity? (Test for proximity) (Must Know)
- Has the offender done anything more than getting himself into a position from which he could embark on an actual attempt?
OR - Has the offender actually commenced execution; that is to say, has he taken a step in the actual offence itself?
What is the punishment for attempted murder? (Must Know)
s173 - Everyone who attempts to commit murder is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years
s174, CA 1961 (Must Know)(CounAM)
174 Counselling or attempting to procure murder
Everyone is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years who,
Incites, counsels, or attempts to procure any person to murder any other person in New Zealand, when that murder is not in fact committed.
What would be the appropriate charge for someone who incites, counsels or procures where murder is attempted but not committed. Include act and section.
Party to Attempt to Murder
s173 and 66(1)(d), CA 1961
s175(1) (Must Know)(Cons + penalty)
175 Conspiracy to murder
(1) Everyone is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years who conspires or agrees with any person to murder any other person, whether the murder is to take place in New Zealand or elsewhere.
s176, CA 1961 (Nice to know)(AATF Penalty)
s176 Accessory after the fact to murder
Everyone is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who is an accessory after the fact to murder
s71(1), CA 1961 (nice to know)(AATF)
An accessory after the fact to an offence is one who, knowing any person to have been a party to the offence, receives, comforts, or assists that person or tampers with or actively suppresses any evidence against him or her, in order to enable him or her to escape after arrest or to avoid arrest or conviction.
R v Mane (Acc)
Short version: To be considered an accessory the acts done by the person must be after the completion of the offence.
Long version: 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 of murder when the actus reus of the alleged criminal conduct was wholly completed before the offence of homicide was completed.
Identify and explain the two different types of manslaughter in common law. (Must Know)
Voluntary manslaughter - mitigating circumstances (eg. suicide pact) reduce what would otherwise be murder to manslaughter even though defendant may have had intent to kill or cause GBH.
Involuntary manslaughter - Death is caused by an unlawful act or gross negligence. No intent to kill or cause GBH.
When you come across a killing that is a result of a sudden fight, what needs to be considered? (Must Know)
Whether there was
- self-defence
- the requisite mens rea for a murder charge
When there is a killing in a sudden fight, outline the different ways in which the killing could be viewed. (Must Know)
- Homicide could be justified as having arisen out of self-defence (s48). Proper verdict would be an acquittal.
- If the fact there was a fight negates that the defendant had the required mens rea to bring a charge of murder within s167 the proper verdict is manslaughter.
What is the four point test outlined in Newbury and Jones for proving an unlawful act for manslaughter? (Must Know)(IUDD)
- The defendant must intentionally do an act
- The act must be unlawful
- The act must be dangerous
- The act must cause death
What is the punishment for manslaughter?
Everyone who commits manslaughter is liable to imprisonment for life.
s178(1), CA 1961 (Must Know)(Inf)
Where a woman causes the death of any child of hers under the age of 10 years in a manner that amounts to culpable homicide, and where at the time of the offence the balance of her mind was disturbed, by reason of her not having fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to that or any other child, or by reason of the effect of lactation, or by reason of any disorder consequent upon childbirth or lactation, to such an extent that she should not be held fully responsible, she is guilty of infanticide and not of murder or manslaughter, and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years.
In charges of infanticide, who decides on the mother’s state of mind? (Must Know)
The jury
Define the term ‘vulnerable adult’. (Nice to know) (DASMi)
A person unable, by reason of detention, age, sickness, mental impairment, or any other cause, to withdraw himself or herself from the care or charge of another person.
s154, CA 1961 (Must Know)(AbC) + penalty
154 Abandoning child under 6
Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who unlawfully abandons or exposes any child under the age of 6 years.
According to s163, noone is criminally responsible for the killing of another by any influence on the mind alone or by any disorder or disease arising from such influence, with two exceptions. What are those exceptions?
Wilfully frightening a child under the age of 16 years or a sick person
s163, CA 1961 (Must Know)(WF)
Killing by influence on the mind
No one is criminally responsible for the killing of another by any influence on the mind alone, except by wilfully frightening a child under the age of 16 years 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.
Outline R v Blaue. What was the finding in this case? (Nirvana)
The victim (JW) had been stabbed but refused blood transfusion on religious grounds. Despite warning she persisted and died the following day. Cause of death was bleeding into pleural cavity caused by stabbing. Appeal against conviction of manslaughter on ground that her refusal was unreasonable and broke chain of causation…dismissed.
R v Blaue
Those who use violence must take their victims as they find them.
What was held in R v Tarei in regards to life support? (Not verbatim)
The withdrawal of any form of life support system is not ‘treatment’ under s166, CA 1961. To withdraw life support does not cause death but removes the possibility of extending the person’s life through artificial means.
What were the two rules stated by The English Court of Appeal in R v Jordan? (Nice to know)(Felonious injury)
- Death resulting from any normal treatment employed to deal with a felonious injury may be regarded as caused by the injury.
- In other circumstances it is a question of fact to establish a causal connection between the death and the felonious injury,
Define the term ‘novus actus interviens’. (Nice to know)
[Latin: a new intervening act] An intervening act that breaks the chain of causation.
Outline R v Bristowe.
A woman placed weed killer in beer bottle to be drunk by her husband. Husband became ill and was treated in hospital for alcoholism over five days then died. Death found to be due to arsenic and Court ruled that causal chain of responsibility was not broken by unsatisfactory treatment.
s179(1), CA 1961 (AA Sui) + penalty
179 Aiding and abetting suicide
(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who—
(a) incites, counsels, or procures any person to commit suicide, if that person commits or attempts to commit suicide in consequence thereof; or
(b) aids or abets any person in the commission of suicide
s180(1) and (2), CA 1961 (Must Know)(SuiP)
180 Suicide pact
(1) Every one who in pursuance of a suicide pact kills any other person is guilty of manslaughter and not of murder, and is liable accordingly.
(2) Where 2 or more persons enter into a suicide pact, and in pursuance of it 1 or more of them kills himself or herself, any survivor is guilty of being a party to a death under a suicide pact contrary to this subsection and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years; but he or she shall not be convicted of an offence against section 179.
s181, CA 1961 (Must Know)(ConDBC)
181 Concealing dead body of child
Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years who,
Disposes of the dead body of any child in any manner with intent to conceal the fact of its birth, whether the child died before, or during, or after birth
Define the term ‘justified’. (Must Know)
The person is not guilty of an offence and is not liable civilly.
Define the term ‘protected from criminal responsibility’.
The person is not guilty of an offence but civil liability may still arise.
Outline the defences for children including section. (Must Know)
21 Children under 10
(1) No person shall be convicted of an offence by reason of any act done or omitted by him or her when under the age of 10 years.
22 Children between 10 and 14
(1) No person shall be convicted of an offence by reason of any act done or omitted by him or her when of the age of 10 but under the age of 14 years, unless he or she knew either that the act or omission was wrong or that it was contrary to law.
R v Forrest and Forrest
The best evidence possible in the circumstances should be adduced by the prosecution in proof of the victim’s age.
Explain the only 3 situations in which proceedings may lawfully be commenced under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 against a child alleged to have committed an offence in s272(1), CYPF Act 1989.
(a) where the child is of or over the age of 10 years, and the offence is murder or manslaughter:
(b) where the child is aged 12 or 13 years, and the offence is one (other than murder or manslaughter) for which the maximum penalty available is or includes imprisonment for life or for at least 14 years:
(c) where the child is aged 12 or 13 years and is a previous offender under subsection (1A) or (1B), and the offence is one (other than murder or manslaughter) for which the maximum penalty available is or includes imprisonment for at least 10 years but less than 14 years.
Burden of proof, for children aged 10-13 years what must be shown? (Must Know)
it must be shown that the child knew their act was wrong or contrary to law.
s23(2), CA 1961 (Must Know)(Ins)
23 Insanity
(2) No person shall be convicted of an offence by reason of an act done or omitted by him or her when labouring under natural imbecility or disease of the mind to such an extent as to render him or her incapable—
(a) of understanding the nature and quality of the act or omission; or
(b) of knowing that the act or omission was morally wrong, having regard to the commonly accepted standards of right and wrong.
R v Cottle re the defence of insanity
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 re insanity
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 the evidence which in this case shows that the accused did not and had been unable to know that his act was morally wrong.