Homicide

Question 1

R v Smith
1959, QB (UK)

Answer 1

CAUSATION

Man stabbed in back which pierced his lung. On way to hospital he was dropped twice and the medical treatment given turned out to be harmful. He died of a hemorrhage.

Chain of causation not broken.

The defendants act need not be the only cause of death but where it is a substantial cause and operating cause of death at the time they died then there is sufficient causation.

The original stabbing was still an operating and substantial cause - would not have been put in position had it not been for the original stabbing.

You cannot rely on good medical treatment to prevent your liability.

Causation can be cumulative between more than one offender - where multiple concurrent causes there is no requirement that the person charged is the sole cause of death.

Question 2

R v Blaue
1975, COA (UK)

Answer 2

CAUSATION

18 year old women was stabbed and told that in order to survive she needs a blood transfusion. She refused blood transfusion due to religious beliefs and resultantly died.

Chain of causation not broken.

The physical cause of death in this case was the bleeding into the pleural cavity arising from penetration of the lung and this had not been brought about by any decision made by the victim but by the stab wound.

This causation principle applies regardless of physical characteristics or beliefs of the victim (Egg shell skull).

Question 3

R v Renata
1992, COA (NZ)

Answer 3

EGG SHELL SKULL

Group of people assaulted a victim but not in a severe way that death was likely to result. The man had a cyst on kidney (preexisting problem) which burst, he deteriorated quickly and died.

Held that the assault was the cause of death.

Held the general rule is that when someone unlawfully assaults another person by a dangerous application of force, the assailant is guilty of manslaughter if death is caused even in a most unexpected way

Egg Shell Skull - just because he had pre existing condition does not negate liability.

Question 4

R v Kennedy
2007, (UK)

Answer 4

CAUSATION

Accused provided heroin as requested and then deceased self-injected and died.

Held that K did not cause the death - Although he supplied the substance that caused the death it was own decision to inject the substance. The free and voluntary act of deceased broke the chain of causation.

Informed adults of sound mind (not mistaken or unlawfully influenced) are treated as autonomous beings able to make their own decision on how they will act, therefore were they independently make a decision that results in death someone else cannot be blamed.

Question 5

R v Pagett
1983, COA (UK)

Answer 5

NAI

Women was pregnant and left partner. He came and violently took her back to their house. The police arrived and whilst in dark hallway were shooting at him. He used women as human shield and she was shot and killed.

Held chain of causation not broken.

Were a reasonable act of self-defense causes the death of a third party should not relieve accused from criminal responsibility for their death.

Question 6

R v Tomars
1978, COA (NZ)

Answer 6

NAI - natural consequence - s160(d)

Motorcyclist was being violated by car of men. Turned off lights, pulled off road and went to turn around but hit by oncoming car and killed.

Held the actions of the deceased were reasonably foreseeable in the circumstances - turned lights off so they wouldn’t see him and turned around to get away.

Endorsed R v Roberts (UK COA) that violent party will be liable for victims act causing death when it was a natural consequence of the violence e.g., it was reasonably foreseeable that someone would perform that action.

Objective test based on person in the circumstances - open to jury to conclude.

Leading NZ case for “fright and flight”.

Question 7

R v Jordan
1956

Answer 7

NAI

A stabbing penetrated victims bowel. When wound was almost healed victim was given antibiotics despite medical professionals knowledge of allergies. Allergic reaction resulted in death.

Held that NAI and thus chain of causation broken.

Gross negligence of the medical professional due to knowledge of allergies and because wound was almost healed it was no longer an operating cause at the time of allergic reaction that caused death.

Question 8

R v Kuka
2009, COA (NZ)

Answer 8

OMISSION DUTY

3 year old girl was assaulted by members of household and mother found her unconscious but did not seek immediate medial care.

held that mother labile of homicide for omission because a mother has a duty to care for child it was unlawful that upon being aware of situation she did not take her for medical treatment (failure to provide necessaries of life) and failed to protect daughter from violence thereby causing death.

For an omission to be culpable homicide it needs to be necessary and requires a duty.

Question 9

R v Myatt
1991, NZ

Answer 9

UNLAWFUL ACT

Unlawful act must be a criminal offence, not a civil wrong.

Unlawful act must be an act that is likely to cause harm - only requires risk of some harm, not serious harm = law threshold.

Question 10

R v Hawkins
2001, HC (NZ)

Answer 10

UNLAWFUL ACT

Accused was driving without license and subject to epileptic fits. Whilst in the throes of a fit she collided with a car killing another. Unlawful act was driving without a license.

Held not culpable for homicide because the unlawful act of not driving with license was not the cause of the death, it was the epileptic fit.

The collision would have occurred even if she did have a license. Should have been charged with negligent manslaughter, not homicide.

Held it must be the unlawful act that actually causes the death.

Question 11

R v Lee
2006, COA (NZ)

Answer 11

Lee assaulted victim by applying pressure to her neck by performing an exorcism on her.

Court held that they shouldn’t look at any act in isolation but the series of acts as a whole and found that because the series of acts of the whole exorcism procedure were objectively dangerous Lee is liable.

Held it is not just the final act which causes death that you look at, but rather the whole series of acts taken together.

Question 12

R v Powell
2002, COA (NZ)

Answer 12

GROSS NEGLIGENCE

Powell ran over a man in a protest and killed him. He was charged with unlawful act manslaughter where the unlawful act was careless use of a motor vehicle.

Held that where negligence is the basis of a manslaughter charge the required standard is gross negligence.

Question 13

R v Taylor
2016, HC (NZ)

Answer 13

DUTY OMISSION

Elderly women living with her daughter and a couple. The elderly women died of malnutrition and dehydration after a couple weeks of intense suffering following numerous falls.

Held that the household members were liable - Daughter convicted of manslaughter failing to take proper care of a vulnerable adult without lawful excuse.

Couple liable for failure to take care due to knowing of elderly women’s conditioner (brought air fresheners to hide smell of her rotting).

Question 14

R v Hamer
2005, COA (NZ)

Answer 14

OMISSION DUTY

Mrs Hamer took excess methadone which had been prescribed to husband Mr Hamer. He took 17 hours to call the ambulance and had placed pillows behind her head which blocked her airways. She suffered brain damage for oxygen deprivation and eventually died some time later.

Held that Mr H omission to take reasonable care was a major departure from the standard of care expected from a reasonable person in the circumstances therefore liable.

Judge rejected submission that although objective test jury needs to superimpose characteristics of particular person but the state of mind is relevant to negligence.

Mr Hamer had appreciation for the risk to his wife after taking the drug yet he ran the risk by not acting faster to mediate it = actual foresight of the risk.

Major departure test is objective - defendants characteristics are irrelevant - we don’t have different duties for different people.

Question 15

Perry v R
2018, COA (NZ)

Answer 15

Group planned to intimidate and rob a drug dealer. The victim hid from the group in a shallow water filled levee and subsequently drowned and died.

Held that the victims response contributed in a significant way to the death and chain of causation will be broken where victims act is not foreseeable.

Held that hiding in leave was not reasonably foreseeable.

Question 16

R v Harney
1987, COA (NZ)

Answer 16

RECKLESS MURDER

Street brawl lead to victim being stabbed in the abdomen and subsequently died. The defendant admitted he intended to stab but that he was aiming for the leg. The stabbing happened after other fighters had backed away and they told him to put knife away.

Held that If you know what your doing is likely to cause death and you do it that is enough, reckless then redundant (because it is reckless anyway by definition).

Court said that perhaps there is room for the jury to take the view that the stabbing was an instinctive and unthinking reaction in the heat of the moment - therefore no appreciated the consequence and guilty of manslaughter instead. However on the evidence it was said that the defendant had been told by friends to drop the knife and those in the fight had backed off - therefore he had time to make a conscious decision of what he was doing and then use the knife.

Question 17

Shadrock v R
2011, COA (NZ)

Answer 17

UNLAWFUL OBJECT MURDER

S had plan to go to shopping mall car park, steal someone’s handbag and then drive away. Object crime = theft. When he stole women’s handbag she chased him, he got in car and then as he was driving away he drove over her foot and she fell backwards hitting her head and died.

Held liable for object matter murder.

Held that although the object crime of theft had been completed the fatal act was so proximate that the continuing act theory could be applied. This can be applied in the present case because once S stole the handbag that was not the end, she chased him making it a continued act.

The fatal act of fleeing was committed for the purposes of the object crime of theft thus sufficiently linked.

Held that the unlawful act needs to be a criminal offence.

Question 18

Kumar v R
2016, COA and SC (NZ)

Answer 18

ONE TRANSACTION PRINCIPLE

Privy Council case of Thabo Meli v R set out the one transaction principle which meant that you could not avoid liability just because you mistakenly think you have achieved objective of killing by one act, but it is actually achieved by a following act.

In this case: Offender with murderous intent committed an assault then set deceased alight. Evidence showed that it was being burnt that caused death and the assault had just left deceased unconscious.

Held that as long as there are a series of linked events starting with unlawful act and ending in death the one transaction principle can occur. Thus, offenders murderous intent taken as one transaction because V was set alight in order to conceal the assault.

Held that one transaction principle does not required a pre conceived plan as suggested in Thabo.

Question 19

McKeown

Answer 19

Held that there is no principle requiring prove that the accused foresaw precisely how death would occur, as long as he knew that in a broad sense assaulting her would be likely to cause death.