Homicide Case law / definitions

Question 1

MURRAY WRIGHT LTD

Answer 1

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.

MANSLAUGHTER : an organisation can be convicted as a party to the offence (sec 66(1))

MURDER: An organisation cannot be convicted as either a principal offender or a party to the offence, this is because the offences carries a mandatory life sentence

Question 2

R v TOMARS

Answer 2

R v TOMARS
formulates the issues in the following ways:

1) Was the deceased threatened by, in fear of, or deceived by the defendant?
2) If they were, did such threats, fear or deception cause the deceased to do an act which caused their death?
3) Was this act a natural consequence of the actions of the Defendant, in the sense that reasonable and responsible people in the defendants position at the time could reasonably have foreseen the consequences?
4) Did these reasonably foreseeable consequences of the defendant contribute in a significant way to his death?

Question 3

R v MYATT

Answer 3

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 that was likely to do harm to the deceased or to some class of person of whom he was one

Question 4

R v HORRY (body not located)

Answer 4

Death should be provably 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.

Question 5

R v MURPHY

Answer 5

When proving an attempt to commit an offence it must be shown that the offenders intent was to commit the substantive offence. For example, in a case of attempted murder the Crown must establish an actual intention to kill

Question 6

R v HARPUR

Answer 6

The Court may have regard to the conduct viewed cumulatively up to the point where the conduct in question stops…. the defendants conduct may be viewed in its entirety. Considering how much remains to be done is always relevant, though not determinative

Question 7

R v MANE

Answer 7

For a person to be an accessory the offence must be complete at the time of criminal involvement. One cannot be convicted as being an accessory after the fact of murder when the actus reuse of alleged criminal conduct was wholly completed before the offence of homicide was completed

Question 8

R v BLAUE

Answer 8

Those who use violence must take their victims as they find them

Question 9

R v PIRI

Answer 9

Recklessness (here) involves a conscious, deliberate risk taking. The degree of risk of death foreseen by the the accused under sec 167(b) or (d) must be more than negligible or remote. The accused must recognise “a real or substantial risk” that death would be caused.

Question 10

R v DESMOND

Answer 10

Not only must the object be unlawful, but also the accused must know his act is likely to cause death. It must be shown that his knowledge accompanied the act causing death.

Question 11

Voluntary manslaughter / Involuntary manslaughter

Answer 11

VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER:
Mitigating circumstances, such as a suicide pact, reduce what would otherwise be murder to manslaughter, even though the defendant may have intended to kill or cause GBH

INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER:
Covers those types of unlawful killing in which the death is caused by an unlawful act or gross negligence. In such cases there has been no intention to kill or cause GBH

Question 12

Manslaughter

Answer 12

Manslaughter, includes culpable homicide that:

• does not come within s167 or s168
• comes within s167 and s168 but is reduced to manslaughter because the killing was part of a suicide pact as defined in s180(3)

Newbury and Jones 4 point test:

1. The defendant must intentionally do an act
2. The act must be unlawful
3. The act must be dangerous
4. The act must cause death