murder and culpable homicide

Question 1

what does the eggshell skull rule say +cases?

Answer 1

the frailty of the person who was injured cannot be used as a defense to limit the liability of the at-fault party.

Question 2

difference between motive and intention?

Answer 2

two separate things. motive = why was he compelled to do that? motive irrelevant for liability but intention is.
motive bolsters intention.
Motive has always been a relevant factor but not decisiive factor. Sometimes u do things w intention but without a motive –> absence of motive doesnt negate intention!

Question 3

factors taken into account to determine the intention in CH and muders?

Answer 3

• 1 Facts of case
• 2 Nature (degree of) and location of injury
• 3 # of injuries , solitary injury (ie isit jsut one wound)
• 4 Type of weaopn used –> the more indiscriminate the weapon used, the stronger the inferred intention to kill (unless its that in the case of kho jabing)

Question 4

thabo meli key facts and rule

Answer 4

• intended to kill victim, but did not die due to assault, only died due to exposure several days later
• appealed that there was no coincidence of AR n MR of the murder
• ruled: to treat the chain of evetns as a continuing AR; accused were convicted of murder - as long as prosec can prove that there was MR at some point in time betn hitting him on the head and the time of death
• one transaction act, where the act of beating him up till throwing him off the cliff was a continuous series of acts that transpired in one transaction
• applied to 300a 300b cases

Question 5

thabo meli approach, and other applications

Answer 5

if two separate acts were done to the victim that resulted in his death, those two acts should be treated as part of the same transaction if the accused had preconceived plan to kill the victim, even though the intention was not operative at the time the second act was done.
applied to 300a, b

1 applied in shaiful edham –> slicing of neck wasn’t fatal but the drowning was the cause of death –> bothe events were seen as a single transaction

2 NOT applied in wang wenfeng –> was a 300c case –> in 300c caase alw got conicidence one

Question 6

test for 300c cases

Answer 6

4 elements laid out in virsa singhh

1. Establish objectively that a bodily injury is present
   
   2. The nature of the injury must be proved (objectively through medic)
2. Prove that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional, or that some other kind of injury was intended
3. Prove that the injury of the type just described made up of the three elements set out above is sufficient in to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This is also an objective medical inquiry, and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender

only 3 is subjective; the rest are done through medical inquiry. only need intention to strike that specific (but not precise - limpohlye ) injury

Question 7

what burden of proof is upon the prosecution in charging the accused under 300c?

Answer 7

has to proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt that accused intended the particular, specific fatal injuries.

Question 8

4 types of MR in s300

Answer 8

1. intention to cause death
2. intention to inflict injuries that A KNOWS is going to lead to death, given subjective knowledge of the victim’s medical vulnerabilities
3. intention to inflict bodily injury (latter part objectively ascertained)
4. knowledge that act is so imminently dangerous that it is virtually certain to cause death

Question 9

specific vs precise injury

Answer 9

in the case of lim poh lye –> was charged under 300c because the appelllants knew of the nature of the specific injury - five stabs to the leg - althouhgh they didnt know the precise nature of the injury; that is the fact that it severed a key vein

Question 10

interpretation of 300c –> i/t/o MR

Answer 10

means that the accused need only have the MR of intending to inflcit that particular injury. The nature of the injury is impt in determining wehther this charge is to be used, and it does not matter whether or not the accused intended to kill. surely, the injuries that can be defined with 300c are so grievious that if they inflict injuries of that kind, they must face the consequences - can only escape if it is shown or reasonably deduced that injury was accidental or unintentional

Question 11

difference between 299.2 and 300c

Answer 11

mR is the same, AR is the same, only differ in the probabiltiy of death occuring.

Question 12

s34 joint liability

Answer 12

daniel vijay set out 4 requirements for a charge under s34

1. to have done the criminal act
2. to have had a common intention
3. participation element
4. acted in furtherance of a common intention