Unlawful Killers Flashcards
Policy behind the doctrine
Medieval origins
No one is engulfed to benefit from his or her own wrong as a matter of public policy, equity and morality
Reform
Parricide only applies to certain victims, only slaying and only where convicted
SLC recommend that conviction not necessary - civil court can be involved in determining whether act committed of parties did not accept
Can those who cover up for the killer be held liable?
No. See Tannock v Tannock.
Mother killed husband and son his murder weapon. Clear that she was excluded, but he was not as not physically involved so couldn’t be art and part.
Args for and against conviction
For
- certainty, easier
Don’t want to get it wrong
But
Might lead to injustice where fled abroad
Civil court can adjudicate if necessary
Oliphant
Man killed his father, children’s inheritance protected as he fled abroad and could not be convicted
Smith Petitioner
Manslaughter still excludes
Burns v SoS
Not every culpable homicide will exclude
Buckley article
Dim resp should exculpate
But don’t want to encourage commission of a crime
NOT where intentional
France
Killers, assaulters, accusing of crime
Conviction though!
Germany
No conviction
New Zealand
Insanity etc taken into account
Effect of forfeiture
Disentitles killer from succeeding, but not predeceased!!!! (Hunter’s Ex)
Hunter’s Ex
Woman killed by husband.
Predeceased??? Stair and 1990 report
➡️ destination over to his son. But he hadn’t failed by death, so couldn’t give to substitutes!
Fell to intestacy instead
Public policy played role
SLC recommend
Clearest and simplest way is to disinherit by deemed predecease, same in England.
What relief from forfeiture?
S2(1) court has power to modify effect of rule where, having regard to the conduct of the offender, the justice of the case demands the rule to be modified. 3 months time limit
