HOMICIDE LAW 2 Flashcards
Murder & Manslaughter offences.
Sec 167 - Definition of murder:
The offender means to:
- (a) Cause Death to the person killed.
- (b) Cause to the person killed any bodily injury known by the offender likely to cause death and is reckless whether death ensues or not.
- (c) Cause death, or is reckless whether death ensues or not, means to cause injury to one person but by mistake kills another person even though he did not mean to hurt the person killed.
- (d) By any unlawful object does an act likely to cause death and thereby kills somebody, though he may have desired his objective be affected without hurting anyone.
Sec 168 – further Definition of murder:
Whether the offender means or does not mean death to ensue, or knows or does not know that death is likely to ensue:
(a) If he means to cause GBH for the purposes of facilitating the commission of an offence mentioned in subsection (2) of this section or facilitating the flight or avoiding the detection of the offender upon the commission or attempted commission thereof, or for the purpose of resisting lawful apprehension in respect of any offence whatsoever and death ensues from such injuries.
(b) If he administers any stupefying or overpowering thing for any of the purposes aforesaid, and death ensues from the effects thereof:
(c) If he by any means wilfully stops the breath of any person for the purposes aforesaid and death ensues from such stopping of breath.
Q. Definition of Intent:
A. In a criminal law context there are two types of intention in an offence. Firstly there must be an intent to commit the act and secondly an intention to get a specific result.
Q. If you intend to charge an offender with murder, what must you show?
A. That the defendant:
- Intended to cause death, or
- Knew that it was likely to ensue, or
- Was reckless that death would ensue.
Recklessness
Q. What was held in RvHarney? And state relevant case law.
A. The defendant was convicted of murder after stabbing the victim in the stomach during an altercation. He argued unsuccessfully that he aimed for the victims leg knowing it could seriously injure the man but denied wanting to kill him.
Case law – RvHarney.
Case law – RvHarney.
Case law – RvHarney.
“Recklessness is the conscious and deliberate taking of an unjustified risk. In NZ it involves proof that the consequences complained of could well happen, together with an intention to continue the course of conduct regardless of risk.”
Q. In order to show the defendant’s ‘state of mind’ meets the provisions of 167(b) what must you establish about the defendant? And State the relevant case law.
A. That the defendant:
- Intended to cause death, or
- Knew that it was likely to ensue, or
- Was reckless that death would ensue.
RvPiri
RvPiri
RvPiri
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 recognise a “real or substantial risk” that death would be caused:
Q. Explain your understanding of ‘Killing in the pursuit of an unlawful act.’
A. The court must consider:
- Whether the defendant knew the acts were likely to cause death, AND
- Whether the defendant’s original intent was an unlawful object.
- The Jury decides whether the defendant knew this at the time of his/her actions at the time were likely to cause death.
- The unlawful object does not need to be the same as that injury that causes death.
The classic example is where death is caused by blowing up a prison wall to liberate prisoners.
Q. Explain your understanding of ‘Joint Responsibility.’
A. (Parties to an offence) – Not necessary that the secondary party knew that the death was a probable consequence of carrying out their primary purpose.
Must be shown that the secondary party knew it was a probable consequence that the principal might do an act/conduct within the terms of s168 CA61. (GBH/stupefy/overpower/stop breathing)
Q. What is the punishment for Murder?
A. Everyone who commits murder is liable to life imprisonment.
Q. Explain your understanding of the sentencing Act 2002?
A. A convicted murderer must be sentenced to imprisonment for life unless, given the circumstances of the offence, and the offender, a sentence of imprisonment for life would be manifestly unjust.
If a Court does not impose a life sentence it must give written reasons for not doing so.
Associated Murder Charges:
Q. Explain your understanding of ‘Attempted Murder’ and state relevant case law.
A.
- The defendant must have done or omitted to do some act(s) that is /are sufficiently proximate to the full offence and have gone beyond the phase of mere preparation.
- Intent must be established.
- The crown is responsible for establishing the mens rea and actus rea set out in s72.
RvMurphy
RvMurphy
RvMurphy
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 a case of attempted murder it is necessary for the Crown to establish an actual intent to kill:
s72 CA62. Definition of attempts
- Everyone who, having an intent to commit an offence, does or omits an act for the purpose of accomplishing his object, is guilty of an attempt to commit the offence intended, whether in the circumstances it was possible to commit the offence or not.
