Homicide

Question 0

Bland (2 precedents)

Answer 0

1. Terminating life support is an omission because it is the underlying ailment that causes death.
2. Only complete destruction of the brain stem can constitute death.

Question 1

Woollin

Answer 1

In murder foresight of the victim’s death as a virtual certainty entitles (not obliges) the jury to find an intent to kill, overturning Smith.

Question 2

Evans

Answer 2

For murder an omission to act may make D liable where she has contributed to the life-threatening state of affairs.

Question 3

A-G Ref No.3 of 1994

Answer 3

1. A fetus only becomes a human being when it attains an existence independent of the mother.
2. If D intends to kill the baby post birth this is murder, for which D must intend to kill a person.

Question 4

Pagett

Answer 4

If D places V in a situation where he is killed by the reasonably foreseeable/justified and involuntary response of T D is causally responsible for V’s death.

Question 5

Cunningham

Answer 5

An intent to do GBH is sufficient for murder.

Question 6

Duffy

Answer 6

Devlin J offered a test as to whether D had subjectively lost control - D must have been so overwhelmed by emotion so as to make him “not master of his mind”.

Question 7

Clinton (2 precedents)

Answer 7

Sexual infidelity is to be excluded as a qualifying trigger for the loss of control defence but its presence does not preclude the defence if there are other qualifying triggers.

Sexual infidelity is relevant to establishing the trigger under S.55(4) and under the reasonable person test.

Question 8

Dawes

Answer 8

Since D had incited the violence committed against him by V he could not bring the defence.

Question 9

Asmelash

Answer 9

The reasonable person is sober; evidence of intoxication is precluded under S.54(3) unless it was relevant in some other way,

Question 10

Andrews

Answer 10

For constructive manslaughter the act must be criminal per se, not merely a lawful act done so carelessly as to attract criminal liability, excluding regulatory (eg food safety) and driving offences from the ambit of constructive manslaughter.

Question 11

Dawson

Answer 11

The Church formulation requires the reasonable person to be invested with D’s knowledge at the time of the act.

Question 12

Church

Answer 12

Constructive manslaughter requires a dangerous act - one which “all sober and reasonable people would recognize as subjecting the victim to the risk of some, albeit not serious harm”

Question 13

Scarlett

Answer 13

For constructive manslaughter the act must be a criminal act and not merely an act attracting civil liability.

Question 14

Lowe

Answer 14

Constructive manslaughter can only be committed by a positive act.

Question 15

Pittwood

Answer 15

If D is to be held liable for an omission he must be shown to have owed a duty of care to V.

Question 16

Bateman (2 precedents)

Answer 16

For GNM the breach must have been so gross, in terms of D’s disregard for the life and safety of others, as to warrant criminal conviction.

The test is of D’s conduct (objective) and not his disposition or intent.

Question 17

Adomako

Answer 17

The test of gross negligence in Bateman is to be applied to the risk of causing death and not some lesser risk.

Question 18

Misra (2 precedents)

Answer 18

The test of grossness is a test of FACT not law.

The severity of negligence for GNM must be greater than that required to attract civil liability.

Question 19

JM and SM

Answer 19

For the Church formulation it is not necessary to show that the reasonable person would have foreseen the type of harm suffered by V, merely that D’s conduct subjected V to the risk of harm.

Question 20

Mitchell (old lady)

Answer 20

For constructive manslaughter the unlawful act need not be aimed at V.