Short Questions

Question 1

Outline “M’Naghten’s rules”

Answer 1

The M’Naghten’s rules (or test) is frequently used to establish whether or not a defendant is insane. It is based on the person’s ability to think rationally, so that if a person is insane they were acting under such a defect of reason from a disease of the mind that they did not know:
The nature and quality of their actions, or
That what they were doing was wrong.

Question 2

List four statutory legal duties in respect of the Crimes Act 1961

Answer 2

Provide the necessaries and protect from injury (s151)
Provide necessaries and protect from injury to your charges when you are a parent or guardian (s152)
Provide necessaries as an employer (s153)
Use reasonable knowledge and skill when performing dangerous acts, such as surgery (s155)
Take precautions when in charge of dangerous things, such as machinery (s156)
Avoid omissions that will endanger life (s157).

Question 3

List the difference between counselling or attempting to procure murder (s174) and conspiracy to Murder (s175)

Answer 3

Counselling or attempting to procure murder requires that the offence is to be committed in New Zealand, whereas with conspiracy to murder, the murder can take place in New Zealand or elsewhere.

Counselling or attempting to procure murder only applies if the murder is not in fact committed, whereas conspiracy to murder applies regardless of whether murder is committed or not.

Question 4

Section 159(1) & (2) of the Crimes Act 1961 defines when a child becomes a human being and is therefore able to be murdered under section 158. Detail the provisions of section 159(1) & (2).

Answer 4

159(1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded in a living state from the body of its mother, whether it has breathed or not, whether it has an independent circulation or not, and whether the navel string is severed or not.

159(2) the killing of such child is homicide if it dies in consequence of injuries received before, during, or after birth.

Question 5

Define Homicide, Section 158 of the Crimes Act 1961

Answer 5

Homicide is the killing of a human being by another, directly or indirectly, by any means whatsoever.

Question 6

What was held in R v Mane?

Answer 6

For a person to be an accessory the offence must be complete at the time of the criminal involvement. One cannot be convicted of being an accessory after the fact of murder when the actus reus of the alleged criminal conduct was wholly completed before the offence of homicide was completed.

Question 7

State the ingredients of infanticide (s178 of the Crimes Act 1961).

Answer 7

Where a woman causes the death of any child of hers under the age of 10 years in a manner that amounts to culpable homicide, and where at the time of the offence the balance of her mind was disturbed, by reason of her not having fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to that or any other child, or by reason of the effect of lactation, or by reason of any disorder consequent upon childbirth or lactation, to such an extent that she should not be held fully responsible, she is guilty of infanticide, and not of murder or manslaughter, and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years.

Question 8

What does R v Myatt state about an unlawful act in respect of section 160(2)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961?

Answer 8

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

Question 9

What was held in R v Tomars

Answer 9

Formulates the issues in the following way:

1. Was the deceased threatened by, in fear of or deceived by the accused?
2. If they were, did such threats, fear or deception cause the deceased to do the act that caused their death?
3. Was the act a natural consequence of the actions of the accused, in the sense that reasonable and responsible people in the accused’s position at the time could reasonably have foreseen the consequences?
4. Did these foreseeable actions of the victim contribute in a [significant] way to his death?

Question 10

In general, no one is criminally responsible for the killing of another by any influence of the mind. What are the exceptions to this rule?

Answer 10

Wilfully frightening a child under 16 years of age

Wilfully frightening a sick person (Mentally or physically)

Question 11

What is meant by the term “justified?” Provide two examples:

Answer 11

Note that some acts are “justified” even when they result in death. Section 2 provides that when an act is justified the perpetrator is exempt from both criminal and civil liability.
Examples of such acts include:
Homicide committed in self-defence (s48)
Homicide committed to prevent suicide or commission of an offence which would be likely to cause immediate and serious injury to the person or property of any one (s41).

Question 12

Why is attempted murder one of the most difficult offences in the Crimes Act 1961 to prove beyond reasonable doubt?

Answer 12

R v Murphy
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:

Question 13

What are the ingredients to accessory after the fact to murder?

Answer 13

Knowing any person to have been party to murder, receives, comforts, assists that person or tampers with or actively suppresses evidence against that person in order to enable him to escape after arrest or to avoid conviction.

Question 14

Define the term “Suicide Pact” s180(3) Crimes Act 1961

Answer 14

For the purposes of this section 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.

Question 15

Discuss the case Forrest & Forrest and outline the case law

Answer 15

In R v Forrest & Forrest two men were charged with having sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old girl who had run away from Child Welfare custody. At trial the girl produced her birth certificate and gave evidence herself that she was the person named in the certificate. The men successfully appealed their convictions on the grounds that the Crown had not adequately proved the girl’s age.

The best evidence possible in the circumstances should be adduced by the prosecution in proof of the victim’s age.

Question 16

How do New Zealand Courts deal with a defence of Automatism arising out of taking alcohol and / or drugs?

Answer 16

In New Zealand, 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.

Question 17

List the ingredients of Section 48 of the Crimes Act 1961 (Self-defence or defence of another).

Answer 17

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.

Question 18

What was held in R v Ranger?

Answer 18

If this accused did really think that the lives of herself and her son were in peril because of the deceased, enraged after the struggle, might attempt to shoot them with a rifle near at hand, then it would be going too far, we think, 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.

Question 19

Provide three guidelines in respect of consent regarding assault.

Answer 19

1. Everyone has a right to consent to a surgical operation.
2. Everyone has a right to consent to the infliction of force not involving bodily harm.
3. No one has a right to consent to their death or injury likely to cause death.
4. 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.
5. It is uncertain to what extent any person has a right to consent to their being put in danger of death or bodily harm by the act of another.