Homicide caselaw Flashcards
R V TAREI
R V TAREI
Withdrawal of any form of life support is not treatment under s166ca61 –
to withdraw life support does not cause death
but removes the possibility of extending life through artificial means.
R V KAMIPELI
R V KAMIPELI
It does not have to be shown that the defendant was incapable of forming the mens rea,
merely that because of their drunken state
they did not have the proper state of mind to be guilty.
R V COX
R V COX
Consent must be free, full, voluntary and informed… freely and voluntarily given by a person in a position to form a rational judgement.
R V MANE
R V MANE
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.
R V MYATT
R V MYATT
Before any breach of any act, regulation, rule 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 person of whom he once was.
R V TOMARS
R V TOMARS
Formulates the issues in the following way:
1) Was the deceased threatened by, in fear of or deceived by the accused?
2) If they were did such threats, fear or deception cause the deceased to do the act that caused their death?
3) Was the act a natural consequence of the actions of the accused,
in the sense that reasonable people in the accused’s position at the time
could reasonably have foreseen the consequences?
4) Did these foreseeable actions of the victims contribute in a significant way to his death?
R V MURPHY
R V MURPHY
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 case of attempted murder it is necessary for the Crown to establish an actual intent to kill.
R V RANGER
R V RANGER
If this accused really did think herself and her son were in peril
because of the deceased, enraged after the struggle, might attempt to shoot them with rifle near at hand,
then it would be going too far, we think, to say that the jury could not entertain a reasonable doubt
as to whether a pre-emptive strike with a knife would not be reasonable force in all the circumstances.
R V FOREST AND FOREST
R V FOREST AND FOREST
The best evidence possible in the circumstances should be adduced by the prosecution in proof of [the victim’s] age.
THE M’NAUGHTENS RULE (TEST)
THE M’NAUGHTENS RULE (TEST)
The M’Naughtens rule (test) is frequently to establish whether or not a defendant is insane,
it is based on a persons ability to think rationally,
so that if they are insane they were acting under such a defect caused by a disease of the mind that they did not know;
- The nature and quality of the act
- That what they were doing was wrong
R V HORRY
R V HORRY
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 fact s be accounted for.
R V HARNEY
R V HARNEY
Recklessness involves foresight of dangerous consequences
that could well happen together with an intention to continue the course of conduct regardless of the risk.
R v COTTLE - Burden of Proof
R v COTTLE - Burden of Proof
As to degree of proof,
It is sufficient if the plea is established
To the satisfaction of the jury
Based on a preponderance of probabilities
Without necessarily excluding all reasonable doubt.
R v LIPMAN
R v LIPMAN
Where automatism is brought about
by a voluntary intake of alcohol or drugs
the court may be reluctant to accept
that the actions were involuntary
or that the offender lacked intention.
R V BLAUE
R V BLAUE
Those who use violence must take their victims as they find them.
R V CLANCY
R V CLANCY
The best evidence as to the date of a child’s birth
will normally be produced by the person attending at the birth or the child’s mother …
production of the birth certificate,
if available, may have added to the evidence but was not essential.
POLICE V LAVELLE
POLICE V LAVELLE
It is permissible for undercover officers to merely provide the opportunity
for someone who is ready and willing to offend,
as long as the officers did not initiate the persons interest or willingness to offend.
CAMON V R
CAMERON V R
Recklessness is established if:
(a) the defendant recognised that there was a real possibility that:
(i) his or her actions would bring about the proscribed result; and/or
(ii) that the proscribed circumstances existed; and
(b) having regard to that risk those actions were unreasonable
R V DESMOND
R V DESMOND
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.
R V CLARK (INSANITY - JURY TO DECIDE BASED ON FACTS/MEDICAL EVIDENCE)
R V CLARK (INSANITY - JURY TO DECIDE BASED ON FACTS/MEDICAL EVIDENCE)
The decision as to an accused’s insanity is always for the jury to decide 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 that evidence which in this case shows that the
accused did not and had been unable to know that his act was morally wrong.
R V PIRI
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 recognize a
real or substantial risk that death would be caused
