MUST KNOWS Flashcards
Can an organisation (as opposed to a human being) be convicted of murder or manslaughter? Explain
No, the killing must be done by a human being, an organisation cannot be convicted as a principal offender. Organisation can be convicted as a party to manslaughter but with murder an organisation cannot be convicted as a principal as they are unable to serve the mandatory life sentence.
Section 160 of the Crimes Act 1961 defines what constitutes culpable homicide. What are the five ways set out in subsection (2) of this section?
- An unlawful act
- An omission without a lawful excuse to perform or observe any legal duty
- A combination of both
- Using threats, fear of violence or deception to make victim do an act which leads to their death
- Wilfully frightening a child under 16 years old or a sick person
What is the legal view of consent to death?
The law does not recognise the right of a person to consent to their being killed Section 63 Crimes Act 1961. Their consent does not affect criminal responsibility.
Is a body required to prove the death of a person? Explain your answer with reference to case law R v Horry.
No body is required to prove death
R v Horry - Death should be provable by such circumstances as render it morally certain and leave no ground for reasonable doubt - the circumstantial evidence should be so cogent and compelling as to convince jury that upon no rational hypothesis other than murder can the facts be account for
Would you be charged with any offence if you fatally injured another player during a rugby match? If so, what might the charges be?
Normally you would not be charged with the killing of another player if they died from injuries you caused while playing rugby. However you would be guilty of manslaughter if your actions were considered likely to cause serious injury, as you should have been aware of this at the time and refrained from action
If an offender intends to kill A but inadvertently strikes the fatal blow to B, is the offender still guilty of murder?
Yes, the guilt of the offender is not affected. Section 167(c) states that if the offender means to cause the death of one person and by mistake or accident kills another, even though they didn’t mean to kill that person it is murder
In a charge of attempted murder, what is the crown required to prove?
Section 72, they committed an act sufficiently proximate to full offence with intent to commit the full offence. An intention to kill must be proved
Define voluntary and involuntary manslaughter
Voluntary manslaughter - mitigating circumstances reduce what would otherwise be murder to manslaughter even though defendant may have intended to kill or cause GBH
Involuntary manslaughter - covers those types of unlawful killing in which death is caused by criminal negligence. No intention to kill or cause GBH
When considering what charge to lay in a case where someone has been killed in a sudden fight, what issues do you need to consider?
- Section 48 Self defence
- Whether there is the mens rea (intent) for a murder charge
Section 151 and 152 of the Crimes Act 1961 list the legal duties regarding providing those things and conditions necessary to sustain and protect from injury. Outline the provisions.
Legal duties regarding providing necessaries and to take reasonable steps to protect that person from injury apply to those having actual care or charge of vulnerable adults orin case of a parent or guardian of a child under 18
What types of things fall into the category of dangerous things discussed in Section 156 of the Crimes Act 1961.
Statutory duty of people in charge of dangerous things to take precautions to ensure safety.
- Mines
- Trains
- Vehicles
- Faulty scaffolding
In one incident a man stabs a woman repeatedly; the same thing happens in another incident involving a different man and woman. As a result, the first woman suffer heart failure in an unpredicted reaction to the anaesthetic, whereas the second woman, although she suffers the same reaction and with the same result, wears a medic-alert badge carrying information about her known heart condition and reaction to anaesthetic. Is there any difference in these cases? Is anybody held legally responsible for either of their deaths? If so, who and what would the charge be?
First victim - defendant is guilty of causing her death. The degree of liability depends on the element of mens rea and whether the attack was provoked.
Second victim - if anaesthetist failed to notice woman’s medical alert, the person who did the stabbing would not be culpable and the anaesthetists actions would need to be scrutinised under Section 155.
The death needs to be a direct result of the initial attack and not related to another condition.
Is a person who helps another person commit suicide criminally liable for their actions?
Yes they are liable.
Section 179 - Makes it an offence to assist anyone to commit suicide without having any intention to kill themselves as well.
Section 180 - Makes it an offence to enter a suicide pact and only one person dies as a result.
Section 180(2) - Makes it an offence to enter a suicide pact where both persons are responsible for own actions and one lives.
If a person is deemed to have been justified and not criminally liable for an offence, may they then be proceeded against in civil court?
Justified means that the person is not guilty of an offence and is not civilly liable.
When interviewing 10 - 13 year old children for the offence of murder, what must be shown in addition to the mens rea and actus reus requirements for the child to be held criminally liable for the offence?
It must be shown that the young person knew what they were doing was wrong or contrary to the law. If knowledge cannot be shown, not criminally liable for the offence.
