Progress tests 1 - 6 Flashcards
PT1
Can an organsiation (as opposed to a human being) be convicted of murder or manslaughter?
Answer:
No. Because the killing must be done by human being, and organization cannot be convicted as the principle offender.
Moreover, although an organization can be convicted as a party to Manslaughter, with murder and organization cannot be convicted as neither the principal offender or a party to the offence because it is not possible for an organization to serve the offence’s mandatory life sentence.
PT1
Section 160 CA61 defines what constitutes culpable homicide. What are the five ways set out in subsection (2) of this section?
Answer:
Under section 160 (2) of the Crimes Act 1961, culpable homicide consists of killing a person:
- by an unlawful act
- by an omission without lawful excuse to perform or observe a legal duty
- by both combined (unlawful act/an omission to perform a legal duty)
- by causing that person by threats, fear of violence or deception to do an act that causes their death
- by willfully frightening a child under 16 years of age or a sick person
PT1
What is the legal view of consent to death?
Answer:
The law does not recognize the right of a person to consent to 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
PT1
Is a body required to prove the death of a person? Explain your answer with reference to case law R v Horry
Answer:
No. A body is not required to prove the death of a person has occurred.
This 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 is to convince a jury that upon no rational hypothesis other than murder can the facts be accounted for.
PT1
Would you be charged with any offence if you fatally injured another player during a rugby match?. If so what might the charges be?
Answer:
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.
Eg. stomping on the player’s head after making a tackle
PT2
If an offender intends to kill A but inadvertently strikes the fatal blow to B, is the offender still guilty of murder?
Answer: In case where the 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 although he did not mean to hurt the other person, then it is murder.
PT2
In a charge of attempt to murder, what is the Crown required to prove?
Answer:
When a charge of attempt to murder is made, the Crown must establish the Mens Rea and Actus Reus set out in s72 of the Crimes Act 1961.
An intention to kill must be proved.
PT2
Define voluntary and involuntary manslaughter?
Answer:
In involuntary 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 GBH.
Involuntary manslaughter covers those types of unlawful killing in which this is caused by criminal negligence.
In such cases there has been no intention to kill or cause GBH.
PT2
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?
Answer:
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-defense
- the requisite mens rea for a murder/manslaughter charge.
PT3
Sections 151 and 152 of the Crimes Act 1961 What is the legal duties regarding providing those things and conditions necessary to sustain life and protect from injury outlined the provision?
Answer:
Legal duties regarding provision of them 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 place of a parent having actual care all charge of a child under 18 years
PT3
What type of things fall into the category of dangerous things discussed in section 156 of the Crimes Act 1961?
Answer:
Section 156 of the Crimes Act 1961 set out the statutory duty of people in charge of dangerous things to take reasonable precautions to ensure peoples safety.
Examples such things as most vehicles, trains, animals, ships, weapons, machinery or explosives
Eg. faulty scaffolding collapses because of faulty erection and inadequate inspection
PT3
In one incident of man stabs a woman repeatedly, the same thing happens in another incident involving a different man and woman.
As a result both woman need to undergo emergency surgery during which both die of heart failure.
The first woman suffers heart failure in an unpredicted reaction to the anesthetic, where is the second woman although she suffers the same reaction with the same result wears a Medi-Alert bracelet carrying information about her known heart condition and reaction to anesthetic.
Is there any difference in these cases?
Anybody held legally responsible for either of their deaths?
If so, who, and what would the charges be?
Answer:
If a woman 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 circumstances of the stabbing.
The woman that was wearing the medic alert bracelet that describe her heart condition and her reaction to anesthetic, if the a anesthetist failed to notice it the person who did the stabbing would not be culpable and the anesthetists actions would need to be scrutinized under the provisions of s155 of the Crimes Act 1961 (duty of persons doing dangerous Acts) to evaluate their responsibility.
PT3
Is a person who helps another person commit suicide criminally liable for directions?
Answer:
Yes they are criminally liable.
Because the law does not recognize 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.
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.
PT4
If a person is deemed to have been justified and not criminally liable for an offence, may they then be preceded against in a civil action?
Answer:
In relation to any person, “justified” means that the person is not guilty of an offense and is not liable civilly.
PT4
When interviewing 10 to 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?
Answer:
The children age between 10 and 13 years inclusive, it must be showing that the child knew their act was wrong or contrary to know. If this knowledge cannot be shown, the child cannot be criminally liable for the offence
