Homicide Flashcards
What section is Murder ?
What are the elements to establish Murder?
Murder Section 18 of the Crimes Act
Elements:
1) the death of a person
2) caused by an unlawful act or omission by the accused
3) act being done:
a) RECKLESS - Reckless indifference to human life
b) INTENT -intent to kill or inflict GBH
c) CONSTRUCTIVE -attempt to commit, during or immediately after the commission by the accused, or by some accomplice with him or her, a crime punishable by life or 25 years.
What is the definition of death?
Bonus points - section and act
Section 33 Human Tissues Act
Death is:
1) the irreversible cessation of the functioning of a persons brain, or
2) the irreversible cessation of a person blood
To prove ‘Prima Facie’ of murder what to the prosecution need to establish?
SIN QUA NON - “but for “. But for the actions of the accused.
The death directly resulted in the actions of the accused and no other factors were involved.
Explain causal chain
A causal chain is essentially that death occurred as a direct result of the actions of the accused and no other factors are involved.
What is ‘Novus Actus Interveniens’ and what does it attempt to do?
Novus Actus Interveniens attempts to break the causal chain and establish that death was not a direct act of the accused.
i.e - remove prima facie
To break the causal chain ‘Novus Actus Interveniens” has to be …..what?
What case law explains this?
The Novus Actus Interveniens has to be SUBSTANTIAL and EXTRAORDINARY to break the chain.
HALLET -
Where death occurred as a result of a previous medical condition (physical only) the accused is still responsible for the death and does NOT rupture the chain ie the “Accused must take him as he finds him” THE VULNERABILITY OF THE VICTIM IS NOT A COMPETING FACTOR FOR THE CAUSAL CHAIN.
Does the refusal of medical treatment by the victim Rupture the causal chain? Explain your answer with reference to relevant case law?
According to R v BLAUE the negligence of the victim to access medical treatment does NOT rupture the causal chain. “The Accused must take the victim as they are”
R v BLAUE -In this matter the religious values override the accessing of a blood transfusion. Does not brake the causal chain.
R v HOLLAND - in this matter the Accused assaulted the victim and injured one of the Victims fingers. A doctor advised to have finger amputated and the victim refused. The victim dies as a result. The Accused was said to have caused the death. Did not break the causal chain.
If the actions of Accused results in the the victim reacting in a way that death results due to a life threatening fear caused by the Accused. Does this establish a break the causal chain? Explain your answer and provide an example. Provide relevant case law in your answer.
The actions of the victim due to the life threatening behaviour of the Accused does not break the causal chain. In the case of R v ROYALL the accused was considered to have caused the death were a victim has died where their fear was founded and reasonable in relation to life threatening violence.
In R v ROYALL the victim was suffering life threatening violence as she was being assaulted within her apartment. Due to the life threatening violence the victim jumped out of a six storey building to avoid the apprehending violence.
Is there case law that suggests a break in the causal chain? What is the case law?
R v Jordan suggests that malpractice conducted by a medical practitioner as a result of NON LIFE THREATENING injuries BREAKS the causal chain.
With an intentional Murder, what does the prosecution have to establish? Explain With reference to case law.
The prosecution has to establish that the Accused had the intention to inflict GBH or above.
Hyam v DPP - the prosecution established that the Accused had the intention to cause GBH at the least which resulted in the death of the victim. Furthermore, even know the accused had no desire to kill the victim the intention of GBH was sufficient.
Explain Reckless Murder. If possible refer to case law.
That the accused reasonably foresore that death would be the PROBABLE result of their actions. Actions also include the nil action (omission). The term ‘reckless’ states probable to a substantial or significant risk of harm. The prosecution will attempt to establish that a reasonable perso would foresee that death would result if behaviour was conducted.
NB. with reckless murder - it must be death as a consequence, cannot be intent to inflict GBH - R v Solaman
R v Crabbe - ( truck driver got crabby and drove truck through wall)
In this matter the Accused was drinking a pub which was very populated. He consumed a large amount of alcohol and he was asked to leave by the patron staff or some argument arose. When he left the pub was still at a high capacity. The Accused decided to drive a semi trailor into a wall of the pub. This case established that the accused contemplated the likelihood of his actions and still willing completed the act knowing his actions.
Explain Constructive or Felony Murder. Refer to case law if possible.
1) The death occurred as a result of a foundation crime punishable by 25 years o life. Mens Rea is limited and does not have to be proven for the death of the victim, however, Mens Rea has to be prove for the foundation crime.
2) During or immediately after the commission of a crime punishable by 25 years or more.
R v RYAN - Armed Robbery where the Accused tied up the shot gun went off after the movement of the victim.
Explain Murder by omission to act
A failure to do something that they have an obligation to do. i.e a legal duty to act or provide or forstall that causation.
Explain the doctrine of transferred malice
The accused is still liable for a death despite killing the person not intended.
