Homicide Law (Case law) Flashcards
Murray Wright Ltd
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
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 in 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 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 persons of whom he has one
R v Horry
Circumstantial evidence should be so compelling to convince the jury that there is no rational hypothesis other than murder. It should be provable as to render it morally certain and leave no room for reasonable doubt.
Cameron v R
Recklessness is established if;
The defendant recognised that there was a real possibility that:
- His or her actions would bring about the proscribed result and/or
- That the proscribed circumstances existed and
Having regard to that risk, those actions were unreasonable
R v Piri
Recklessness involves a conscious, deliberate risk taking. The degree 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.
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 an offence, it must be shown that the accused intention was to commit the substantive offence. E.g. In the case of attempted murder it is necessary for the crown to establish an actual intent to kill
R v Harpur
The court may have regard to the conduct viewed cumulatively up to the point when the conduct in question stops. The defendants conduct may be considered in its entirety. Considering how much remains to be done is always relevant though not determinative.
R v Mane
For a person to be an accessory after the fact, 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 Blaue
Those who use violence must take their victims as they find them
Murray Wright Ltd - What is the title
Culpability of an organisation
R v Tomars - What is the title?
Threats, violence or deception
R v Myatt - What is the title?
Unlawful acts
R v Horry - What is the title?
Proof of death
