Short Answer 2 Flashcards
- R v Myatt
R v Myatt [1991] 1 NZLR 674; (1990) 7 CRNZ 304 (CA)
[Before a breach of any Act, regulation or bylaw would be an unlawful act under s 160 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 was one.
- Define ‘Legal Duty’ and give 3 examples of Statutory Duties?
The expression “legal duty” refers to those duties imposed by statute or
common law including uncodified common law duties:
Duties imposed by statute are mainly common law duties that have been
embodied in statute. The Crimes Act 1961 defines duties to:
- provide the necessaries and protect from injury (s151)
- provide necessaries as an employer (s153)
- avoid omissions that will endanger life (s157).
- take precautions when in charge of dangerous things, such as machinery(s156)
- R v Tomars
R v Tomars [1978] 2 NZLR 505
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 defendant’s 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?
- Section 163 “no one is criminally responsible except ….. give 3 exceptions
163 Killing by influence on the mind
No one is criminally responsible for the killing of another by any influence on the mind alone, except by wilfully frightening a child under the age of 16 years or a sick person, nor for the killing of another by any disorder or disease arising from such influence, except by wilfully frightening any such child as aforesaid or a sick person.
- Required state of mind for Section 167 (b)
you must establish that the defendant:
- intended to cause bodily injury to the deceased
- knew the injury was likely to cause death
- was reckless as to whether death ensued or not.
- R v Murphy
R v Murphy [1969] NZLR 959.
When proving an attempt to commit an offence it must be shown that the
accused’s intention was to commit the substantive offence.
For example, in a case of attempted murder it is necessary for the Crown to establish an actual intent to kill.
- 3 differences between Section 174 and 175.
Section 175 may apply regardless of whether murder is committed or not and Section 174 applies where murder is not in fact committed.
Section 175 covers whether the murder occurs within New Zealand or elsewhere. Section 174 covers within New Zealand
- Ingredients for AATF to murder
176 Accessory after the fact to murder
Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who is an accessory after the fact to murder.
- Define Suicide Pact
the term suicide pact means a common agreement between 2 or more persons having for its object the death of all of them, whether or not each is to take his own life; but nothing done by a person who enters into a suicide pact shall be treated as done by him in pursuance of the pact unless it is done while he has the settled intention of dying in pursuance of the pact.
- Brief circumstances of what was held in R v Forest and Forest
The defendants successfully appealed their convictions on the grounds that the Crown had not adequately proved the girl’s age.
R v Forrest and Forrest [1970] NZLR 545 (CA)
“The best evidence possible in the circumstances should be adduced by the
prosecution in proof of [the victim’s] age.”
- Decision of the courts on the defence of Automatism
The courts are likely to steer a middle course, allowing a defence of automatism arising out of taking alcohol and drugs, to offences of basic intent only.
They are likely to disallow the defence where the state of mind is obviously self-induced, the person is blameworthy, and the consequences could have been expected.
- Define Section 48.
48 Self-defence and defence of another
Every one is justified in using, in the defence of himself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he believes them to be, it is reasonable to use.
- Citing case law, discuss a pre emptive strike
It is possible for self-defence to be raised as a defence, even if the defendant
has used a pre-emptive strike against the victim.
R v Ranger held that If the defendant did really think that the lives of herself and her son were in peril, then it would be going too far to say that the jury could not entertain a reasonable doubt as to whether a pre-emptive strike with a knife would be reasonable force in all the circumstances.
- 2 Instances when you cannot consent to assault.
- No one has a right to consent to their death or injury likely to cause death.
- No one has a right to consent to bodily harm in such a manner as to amount to a breach of the peace, or in a prize fight or other exhibition calculated to collect together disorderly persons.
- Define attempts , section 71(1)
Attempts – Section 72, Crimes Act 1961
Everyone who, having an attempt to commit an offence does or omits an act for the purpose of accomplishing his object, is guilty of an offence to commit the offence intended, whether in the circumstances it was possible to commit the offence or not.
