Homicide Law - Case Law

Question 1

What was held in 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.

Question 2

What was held in R v Myatt?

Answer 2

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 persons of whom he was one.

Question 3

What was held in R v Corbett regarding s160(2)(d)?

Answer 3

The victim’s conduct must be such that it could be reasonably foreseen, is proportionate to the threat, or is within the ambit of reasonableness. Although the victim might do the wrong thing or act unwisely, it is sufficient if the reaction is in the foreseeable range.

Question 4

What was held in R v Tomars?

Answer 4

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 the act that caused their death?
3. Was the act a natural consequence of the actions of the defendant, in the sense that reasonable and responsible people in the defendant’s position at the time could reasonably have foreseen the consequences?
4. Did these foreseeable actions of the victim contribute in a significant way to his death?

Question 5

What was held in R v Horry in relation to situations where the body has not been located?

Answer 5

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 facts be accounted for.

Question 6

What was held in R v Collister?

Answer 6

Circumstantial evidence from which an offender’s intent may be inferred can include:

• The offender’s words or actions before, during or after the event
• The surrounding circumstances
• The nature of the act itself

Question 7

What was held in Cameron v R?

Answer 7

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

Question 8

What was held in R v Piri?

Answer 8

Recklessness involves 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.

Question 9

What was held in R v Desmond?

Answer 9

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.

Question 10

What was held in R v Murphy?

Answer 10

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.

Question 11

What was held in R v Harpur?

Answer 11

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

Question 12

What was held in R v Mane?

Answer 12

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.

Question 13

What was held in R v Blaue?

Answer 13

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

Question 14

What was held in R v Tarei?

Answer 14

The withdrawal of life support is not ‘treatment’ under s166. To withdraw life support does not cause death but removes the possibility of extending the person’s life through artificial means.

Question 15

What was held in R v Jordan?

Answer 15

1. Death resulting from any normal treatment employed to deal with a felonious injury may be regarded as caused by the injury
2. In other circumstances, it is a question of fact to establish a causal connection between the death and the felonious injury