Case Note for R v Hallett [1969] PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Case Note for R v Hallett [1969] PDF

Description

Case name: R v Hallett [1969] SASR 141 Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of South Australia Date of proceeding: 1969 Judges: Parties: Appellate: Hallett Prosecution: Crown State of proceeding: Appeals “Table Version”

Facts: 1. While drunk, hallet and whiting had a physical altercation, The fight progressed to the shoreline of the beach wherein the appellate beat the deceased unconscious and left him on the shore with this feet in a few inches of water. The accused claimed he walked back to the deceased after a ‘cooling-off period’ to see him floating dead in the water. 2. The two parties (Hallett and Whiting) had engaged in a physical altercation near a beach after Whiting had made homosexual advances towards the appellate. 3. Both parties had been drinking alcohol. 4. The fight progressed to the shoreline of the beach wherein the appellate beat the deceased unconscious and left him on the shore with this feet in a few inches of water. 5. The accused claimed he walked back to the deceased after a ‘cooling-off period’ to see him floating dead in the water. 6. In a supposed panic, the appellate removed the genitals from the body and also removed the small intestine through a wound in the deceased’s stomach. Issue: -

Issue of causation; whether the appellant’s actions caused the death of Whiting.

Rule: Holdings; what the court held In the original jurisdiction he was convicted; talk about what happens on appeal. Substantial and ** cause. The outcome. The court held that the actions of hallet where the substantial and operating cause of the death of whiting because the tide coming in and out every day is a foreseeable event. -

The court found the appellate convicted of murdering the deceased. However, the Defence argued that the actions of the appellate did not qualify for an act of malice which substantially resulted in the death of a person where the tide rising was an act of God.

Application: -

The court assessed the rule alongside the facts and came to the conclusion that through the sea tide rising and, thereafter, drowning the deceased. The court discussed that the chain of causation was not broken as the act of malice inflicted on the deceased by the appellate directly caused the death of Whiting.

A substantial ‘cause and effect’ nature was employed in this case in which the appellate left the unconscious body of the, not yet deceased, Whiting, in a perilous position. Furthermore, we can assume beyond all reasonable doubt, that the knowledge of the tide coming in every day is not forgotten, and as such, the appellant’s actions, and subsequent lack thereof, directly led to the death of Whiting. Conclusion: The ratio; reason for the decision. -

The Supreme Court of Australia concluded that Mr. Hallett undeniably caused the death of the deceased, Mr Whiting through recklessness of action and malice aforethought.

“Full Version”

The two parties (Hallett and Whiting) had engaged in a physical altercation near a beach after Whiting had made homosexual advances towards the appellate. Both parties had been drinking alcohol. The fight progressed to the shoreline of the beach wherein the appellate beat the deceased unconscious and left him on the shore with this feet in a few inches of water. The accused claimed he walked back to the deceased after a ‘cooling-off period’ to see him floating dead in the water. In a supposed panic, the appellate removed the genitals from the body and also removed the small intestine through a wound in the deceased’s stomach. The legal issue is the question of whether the appellant’s actions, albeit indirect, caused the death of Whiting and if such actions should be considered to be homicidal in nature.

The court found the appellate convicted of murdering the deceased. However, the Defence argued that the actions of the appellate did not qualify for an act of malice which substantially resulted in the death of a person where the tide rising was an act of God. The court assessed the rule alongside the facts and came to the conclusion that through the sea tide rising and, thereafter, drowning the deceased. The court discussed that the chain of causation was not broken as the act of malice inflicted on the deceased by the appellate directly caused the death of Whiting.

A substantial ‘cause and effect’ nature was employed in this case in which the appellate left the unconscious body of the, not yet deceased, Whiting, in a perilous position. Furthermore, we can assume beyond all reasonable doubt, that the knowledge of the tide coming in every day is not forgotten, and as such, the appellant’s actions, and subsequent lack thereof, directly led to the death of Whiting. The Supreme Court of Australia concluded that Mr. Hallett undeniably caused the death of the deceased, Mr Whiting through recklessness of action and malice aforethought....