Practice Test 1 Flashcards
Can an organisation (as opposed to a human being) be convicted of murder or manslaughter? Explain your answer.
No. Because the killing must be done by a human being, an organisation cannot be convicted as the principal offender. Moreover, although an organisation can be convicted as a party to manslaughter, with murder an organisation cannot be convicted as either the principal offender or a party to the offence because it is not possible for an organisation to serve the offence’s 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?
Under s160(2) of the Crimes Act 1961, culpable homicide consists of killing a person by:
- an unlawful act
- an omission without lawful excuse to perform or observe any legal duty
- an unlawful act and an omission to perform a legal duty
- using threats, fear of violence or deception to make the victim do an act that leads to their death
- wilfully frightening a child under 16 years of age 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 (s63 of the Crimes Act 1961). As a consequence, their consent does not affect the criminal responsibility of anyone else involved in the killing.
Is a body required to prove the death of a person? Explain your answer with reference to case law R v Horry.
No a body is not required to prove death of a person has occurred. 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. R v Horry
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 football. 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 the action.
If an offender intends to kill A but inadvertently strikes the fatal blow to B, is the offender still guilty of murder?
In a case where an offender intends to kill A but inadvertently strikes and kills B, 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 he did not mean to hurt the other person, then it is murder.
In a charge of attempt to murder, what is the Crown required to prove?
When a charge of attempt to murder is made, the Crown must establish the mens rea and actus rea as set out in s72 of the Crimes Act 1961. An intention to kill must be proved.
Define voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.
In voluntary manslaughter, mitigating circumstances (such as a suicide pact) reduce what would otherwise be murder to manslaughter, even though the defendant may have intended to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. Involuntary manslaughter covers those types of unlawful killing in which death is caused by criminal negligence. In such cases there has been no intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm
When considering what charge to press in a case where someone has been killed in a sudden fight, what issues do you need to consider?
When you are considering what charge to file after someone has been killed in a sudden fight, you need to consider whether there was:
− self-defence
− the requisite mens rea for a murder/manslaughter charge.
58
Sections 151 and 152 of the Crimes Act 1961 list the legal duties regarding providing those things and conditions necessary to sustain life and protect from injury. Outline the provisions.
Legal duties regarding provision of the necessaries and to take reasonable steps to protect that person from injury apply to those having actual care or charge of people who are vulnerable adults or, in the case of a parent or a person acting in the place of a parent having actual care or charge of a child under 18 years.
What types of things fall into the category of dangerous things discussed in s156 of the Crimes Act 1961?
Section 156 of the Crimes Act 1961 sets out the statutory duty of people in charge of dangerous things to take reasonable precautions to ensure people’s safety. Such things include motor vehicles, trains, animals, ships, weapons, machinery or explosives, and may include such things as the machinery inside a mussel factory, faulty scaffolding that collapses because of faulty erection and inspection, unfenced holes or other industrial-type incidents, depending on the circumstances.
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, both women need to undergo emergency surgery during which both die of heart failure. The first woman suffers 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?
If a woman is stabbed repeatedly and, during emergency surgery in relation to those wounds, dies of a heart attack where all reasonable precautions have been taken, the person who stabbed her initially and not the medical staff are responsible for her death. The degree of liability depends on the element of mens rea and whether the attack was provoked. However, if the woman was wearing a medic-alert bracelet that described her heart condition and her reaction to anaesthetic, and the anaesthetist failed to notice it, the person who did the stabbing would not be culpable and the anaesthetist’s actions would need to be scrutinised under the provisions of s155 of the Crimes Act 1961 (duty of persons doing dangerous acts) to evaluate their responsibility. Simply, 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? Explain your answer.
Because the law does not recognise a person’s right to consent to death, people who help another to commit suicide or who are part of a suicide pact but survive are responsible for the other person’s death. In such cases the surviving person is charged with manslaughter.
Yes they are criminally liable. Section 179 makes it an offence for a person (Person A) to assist another person (Person B) to commit suicide without any intention of Person A committing suicide themselves. For example, when a terminally ill person (Person B) asks their partner to help them commit suicide and their partner (Person A) does. Person A would be liable for aiding and abetting suicide, which has a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. Section 180(1) makes it an offence to enter into a suicide pact, and only one person dies as a result of an action by another person. For example if Person A and Person B enter a suicide pact, and Person A shoots Person B, killing Person B, before shooting themselves, but Person B lives. Person B would be guilty of manslaughter, and not murder.
