Homicide Caselaw Flashcards
R v Myatt
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 likely to do harm to the deceased or to some class of person of whom he was one.
eg- a breach of a electoral law would not suffice because although it is unlawful, it is not an act likely to do harm to the deceased or inherently dangerous.
R v Lee
act must be objectively dangerous. that is, would a reasonable person in the shoes of the defendant know the risk of harm existed? It was also held that some harm means more than trivial harm.
R v Tomars
Formulates the issues in the following way:
- was the deceased threatened by, in fear of, or deceived by the defendant?
- if they were, did such threats, fear or deception cause the deceased to do the act that caused their death?
- was the act a natural consequence of the actions of the defendant, in the sense that reasonable and responsible people i the defendants position at the time could reasonably have foreseen the consequences?
- Did these foreseeable actions of the victim contribute in a significant way to his death?
R v Horry
Death should be provable by such circumstances as render it morally certain and leave no ground of 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.
Cameron v R
Recklessness is established if:
a) the defendant recognised that there was a real possibility that:
- his or her actions would bring about the proscribed result
- that the proscribed circumstances existed, and
b) having regard to that risk those actions were unreasonable
part a) is completely subjective, a real possibility is the same as could well happen. merely require the defendant has recognised the risk the offence anticipates as being possible.
part b) subjective and objective. looks at whether the defendants acts were objectively reasonable given th risk the defendant understood. supreme court held actions depend on “whether a reasonable and prudent person would have taken the risk”
R v Piri
Recklessness here involves a conscious, deliberate risk taking. the degree of risk of death forseen by the accused under either s167b or d must be more than neglable or remote, the accused must recognise a “real or substantial risk” that death would be caused.
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 Murphy
When proving an attempt to commit and offence it must have shown that the accused intention was to commit the substantive offence. eg, in a case of attempted murder, it is necessary for the crown to establish an actual intent to kill. (most difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt)
R v Harpur
The court may have regard to the conduct viewed cumulatively up to the point when the conduct in question stops.. the defendant conduct may be considered in its entirety. Considering how much remains to be done, is always relevant, though not determinative.
R v Balue
Those who use violence must take their victims as they find them
(liability depends on the mens rea not on the victims subsequent actions)
R v Mane
For a person to be an accessory the offence must be completed 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 Forrest and Forrest
Best evidence possible in the circumstance should be adducted by the prosecution in proof of the victims age
R v Cottle
As to degree of proof, it is sufficient if the plea is established to the satisfaction of the jury on preponderance of probabilities without necessarily excluding all reasonable doubt.
R v Clarke
The decision as to an accused insanity is always for the jury 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 Codere
The nature and quality of the act means the physical character of the act. The phrase does not involve any consideration of the accused moral perfection nor his knowledge of the moral quality of the act. Thus a person who is deluded that he cuts a woman throat believing that he is cutting a loaf of bread would not know the nature and quality of the act.
R v Cottle
Doing something without knowledge of it and without memory afterwards of having done it - a temporary eclipse of consciousness nether less leaves the person so affected able to exercise bodily movements.
R v Joyce
The court of appeal decided that the compulsion must be made by a person who is present when the offence is committed
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.
