homicide law case law Flashcards
Murray Wright ltd
Because the killing must be done a human being, an organisation can not be convicted as the principal offender
R v Myatt (Unlawful act)
Before any breach of an act, regulation, rule or bylaw is an unlawful act for the purpose of section 160 CA 61. It must be an act that was likely to cause harm to the victim.
R v Tomars (threats and fear)
- Was the deceased threatened, in fear of or deceived by the defendant.
- If so, did the threats, fear or deception cause the deceased to do an act that was likely to cause their death.
- Was the act a natural consequence of the actions of the defendant in the sense that a reasonable person in the position of the defendant foresee the consequences.
- Did these foreseeable consequences of the victim contribute to their death.
R v HORRY (Body)
Death must be provable by circumstances that render it moraaly certain and leave no reasonable doubt. That the circumstantial evidence is so strong and compelling to convince a jury that no other rational hypothesis other then murder can be account for from the facts.
Cameron v R (Reckless)
Recklessness is established:
If the defendant recognised that there was a real possibility:
- their actions would bring about the proscribed result.
- the proscribed circumstances exisited.
Having regard for the risk, those actions were unreasonable.
R v Piri (Reckless)
Recklessness involves the conscious and deliberate risk taking. the degree of death foreseen by the accussed must be more then negligable or remote. the accussed must also recognise a real or substantial risk of death would be caused.
R v Desmond (Unlawful object)
Not only must the object be unlawful, the accused must also know that the object is likely to cause death. It must be shown that their knowledge accompanied the act causing death.
R v Murphy (Attempts)
When proving an attempt to ommit and offence it must show that the accussed intention to commit the substantive offence.
In the case of attempted murder the crown must prove an actual intention to kill.
R v harpur (Attempts)
The courts may have regard to the conduct cumunatively up until the point the conduct stops. How much is left to be completed is always relevant but not determanative.
R v Mane (Accessory)(Mane offence complete)
For a person to be an accessory the offence must be complete at the time of the criminal involvement. One cannot be convicted to an accessory after the fact to murder when the actus reus of the alleged criminal involvemenrt is completed before the offence of homicide is complete.
R v Blane (Preventable death)
Those who use violence must take their victim as they find them.
R v forest and forest
The best evidence possible in the circumstances should be adduced by the prosecution in proof of the victims age.
R v Cottle (Burdon of proof)
As to the degree of proof. It is sufficient if the jury is satisfied on the balance of probabilities without necessarily excluding all reasonable doubt.
R v Clark (Insantiy)
The decision as to the accuseds insanity is always for the jury and a verdict inconsistant with medical evidence in not unreasonable. But where unchallanged medical evidence is supported by the surrounding facts a jurys verdict must founded on that evidence which in this case shows that the accused did not and had been unable to know that their act was morally wrong.
R v Codere (nature and quality)
The nature and quality of the act means the physical character of the act. The phrase does not involve any consideration into the accuseds moral perseption nor knowledge into the moral quality of the act. Therefore a person who is so deluded that he cuts a womans throat believing that he is cutting a loaf of bread would not know the nature and quality of the act.
