Criminal law exam notes PDF

Preview

Summary

CRIMINAL LAW EXAM NOTES Table of Contents 1 THEMES: COMPONENT OF CRIMINAL OFFENCES 2 2 THE CRIMINAL PROCESS 6 3 ASSAULT 10 4 SEXUAL ASSAULT 16 5 HOMICIDE: MURDER 21 6 HOMICIDE: MANSLAUGHTER 28 7 ABORIGINAL TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER PEOPLE THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM 32 8 PUBLIC ORDER OFFENCES 38 9 DISH...

Description

CRIMINAL(LAW(EXAM(NOTES( (

Table(of(Contents( 1"|"THEMES:"COMPONENT"OF"CRIMINAL"OFFENCES"

2!

2"|"THE"CRIMINAL"PROCESS"

6!

3"|"ASSAULT"

10!

4"|"SEXUAL"ASSAULT"

16!

5"|"HOMICIDE:"MURDER"

21!

6"|"HOMICIDE:"MANSLAUGHTER"

28!

7"|"ABORIGINAL"&"TORRES"STRAIT"ISLANDER"PEOPLE"&"THE"CRIMINAL"JUSTICE" SYSTEM"

32!

8"|"PUBLIC"ORDER"OFFENCES"

38!

9"|"DISHONEST"ACQUISITION"

40!

10"|"DEFENCES:"INSANITY,"SUBSTANTIAL"IMPAIRMENT,"AUTOMATISM"

47!

!

( ( ( (

(

1

1(|(Themes:(Component(of(Criminal(Offences( " Defining(Crime:"Regulatory"offences"="mala$prohibita"(wrong"because"prohibited)" A"crime"is"a"legal"wrong"that"can"be"followed"by"criminal"proceeding"which"may"result"in"punishment"(G" Williams)" ( 1. Actus(reus((physical(element)( § conduct:"act"or"omission" § circumstan ces"(act"becomes"prohibited"by"other"factors)" § consequences"/"Causation"(the"link"between"the"act"and"the"outcome" § Voluntariness" " 2. Mens(rea((mental(element)( § intent"(not"relevant"whether"the"person’s"intent"to"act"was"planned)" § recklessness"(accused"perceives"the"risk"of"the"consequence"but"takes"the"risk"anyway)" § negligence" § strict"liability" § absolute"liability." " What"is"the"test:" -"Subjective:"actual"state"of"mind"of"the"accused" -"Objective:"state"of"mind"of"the"reasonable"person"in"the"situation" " 3. Attempts(to(undermine(the(AR(or(MR:( § intoxication" § automatism/involuntariness." " 4. Defences( § prosecution"to"negate"(disprove)" • complete"defences"-"self-defence" • partial"defences"-"murder"only"–"provocation;" § real"defences"-"accused"to"prove" • alternative"verdict"-"insanity" • partial"defence"-"murder"only"-"substantial"impairment."

2

( Why"is"it"necessary"for"the"actus"reus"and"mens"rea"to"coincide?"Did"it"coincide"in"the"following"cases?" § Thabo$Meli$(1954)$ - [Contemporaneity-of-mens-rea-and-actus-reus-applies-to-actions-as-a-whole---coincidence-of-AR-&-MR---AR'continuing-act-principle']D-and-accomplices-took-V-to-a-hut-and-beat-him-over-the-head-intending-to-kill-him.-They-rolled-his-bodyover-a-cliff-to-make-the-death-appear-accidental.-In-fact,-the-victim-survived-both-the-beating-and-the-fallfrom-the-cliff,-but-died-from-exposure-shortly-afterwards.$ Held:-AR-&-MR-were-present-throughout;-no-need-to-separate-them,-there-was-a-causal-link.--Wherethe-AR-consists-of-a-series-of-linked-acts,-it-is-enough-that-the-MR-existed-at-some-time-during-that-series,even-if-not-necessarily-at-the-time-of-the-particular-act-which-caused-the-death.- Lord-Reid:-"[It-is]-...-impossible-to-divide-up-what-was-really-one-series-of-acts-in-this-way.-There-is-nodoubt-that-the-accused-set-out-to-do-all-these-acts-in-order-to-achieve-their-plan,-and-as-parts-of-theirplan;-and-it-is-much-too-refined-a-ground-of-judgment-to-say-that,-because-they-were-under-amisapprehension-at-one-stage-and-thought-that-their-guilty-purpose-had-been-achieved-before,-in-fact,-itwas-achieved,-therefore-they-are-to-escape-the-penalties-of-the-law."- à -Guilty$of$murder§ Potisk$(1973)$ - Potisk-received-too-much-money,-innocently,-as-a-result-of-a-mistake,-But-kept-it-after-realising-it-was-amistake.- COURT$–-(majority)-Potisk-should-be-acquitted-of-larceny-despite-his-subsequent-dishonesty.-Did-not-havethe-necessary-MR-at-the-time-of-the-AR.-(Dissenting)-Not-prepared-to-acquit-those-who-“he-believed-to-beclearly-dishonest”.§ Fagan$(1969)$ - The-accused-accidentally-rolled-his-car-onto-a-policeman’s-foot.--When-the-policeman-informed-him-ofthis,-the-accused-initially-refused-to-remove-it.-The-act-preceded-the-formation-of-the-intent.- But-a-majority-of-the-English-Queen’s-Bench-Divisional-Court-found-the-accused-guilty-of-assault-becausehis-act-was-a-‘continuing-one’.§ Meyers$(1997)$ -“Act-and-intent-must-coincide.-If-the-circumstances-of-a-fatal-altercation-are-such-that-the-prosecution-canprove-some-acts-were-done-with-the-necessary-intent-but-cannot-prove-that-other-acts-were-done-withintent,-no-conviction-for-murder-can-be-returned-unless-there-is-evidence-on-which-the-jury-can-reasonablyfind-that-the-act-which-caused-the-death-was-one-of-those-done-with-necessary-intent.”-HC---The-accused-would-only-be-guilty-of-manslaughter,-even-if-he-had-the-MR-for-murder-during-theearlier-assaults.- § Le$Brun$(1992)$ - The-suggestion-here-was-that-the-court-won’t-stretch-the-departure-from-the-general-principle-that-ARand-MR-must-coincide-where-there-is-a-situation-that-the-subsequent-act-was-not-done-to-conceal-theformer-one;-eg,-where-the-defendant-tries-to-rescue-the-victim- D-knocked-his-wife-unconscious.--He-dragged-her-away-to-avoid-detection,-whist-dragging-her-she-hit-herhead-on-the-kerb-fracturing-her-skull,-and-she-died.Held:-The-original-unlawful-act-with-its-accompanying-MR-was-not-the-direct-cause-of-death,-but-theunlawful-act-and-the-act-causing-death-were-part-of-"the-same-sequence-of-events",-and-that-wassufficient.-à -Guilty$manslaughter-

( Voluntariness( When"the"crime"or"injury"happens"in"the"performance"of"an"unlawful"act,"the"party"will"be"considered" as"having"acted"voluntarily."" Prosecution"must"prove"that"the"act"was"voluntary." " In"some"cases"it"has"been"suggested"that"an"act"is"not"to"be"treated"as"involuntary"simply"because"the" mind"worked"quickly"and"impulsively…"" 3

Ryan$ The"D"entered"a"shop"with"a"loaded"rifle"for"a"robbery."In"a"sudden"attack,"the"shop"assistant"caught"the" appellant"by"surprise,"causing"him"by"a"reflex"action"to"discharge"the"gun,"killing"the"assistant"instantly."s"18" of"the"Crimes"Act"1900"(NSW)"requires"that""murder"shall"be"committed"where"the"act"of"the"accused"…" causing"the"death"charged"."Barwick"CJ."said"at"213:" That"a"crime"cannot"be"committed"except"by"an"act"or"omission"is"axiomatic"(obvious)."It"is"basic"that"the" ‘act’"of"an"accused"…"must"be"a"‘willed’,"a"voluntary"act"which"has"caused"the"death"charged."It"is"the"act" which"must"be"willed,"though"its"consequences"may"not"be"intended." Was-the-firing-of-the-gun-willed-so-as-to-constitute-an-‘act’-for-the-purposes-of-the-murder-charge?" Elliot(1968)"comments"that"'his"reaction"was"like"the"sudden"movement"of"a"tennis"player"retrieving"a" difficult"shot;"not"accompanied"by"conscious"planning,"but"certainly"not"involuntary'."Despite" accepting"that"the"actual"discharge"was"involuntary,"Barwick"CJ"-"confirmed"the"murder"conviction" because"‘the"act"causing"death’"included"the"general"circumstances"in"which"the"gun"was"fired." The"judge"and"jury:"could"have"concluded"that"the"act"causing"death"was"the"presentation"of"the" cocked,"loaded"gun"with"the"safety"catch"unapplied"and"that"its"involuntary"discharge"was"a"likelihood" which"ought"to"have"been"in"the"contemplation"of"the"applicant"when"presenting"the"gun"in"the" circumstances."

" " Murray$ Thus,"in"relation"to"murder,"the"accused"does"not"need"to"have"voluntarily"caused"the"death."It"is" sufficient"if"he"or"she"voluntarily"committed"the"death-causing-act"" GUMMOW(AND(HAYNE(JJ"considered"Ryan"and"stated:" “Once"it"is"recognised"that"the"act"is"the"act"of"discharging"the"loaded"shotgun"it"can"be"seen"that"the"act" comprises"a"number"of"movements"by"the"appellant"that"can"be"identified"as"separate"movements."He" loaded"the"gun;"he"cocked"it;"he"presented"it;"he"fired"it."Some"of"these"steps"may"be"steps"to"which"the" appellant"would"say"that"he"had"turned"his"mind;"others"may"not"have"been"accompanied"by"conscious" thought."It"is"by"no"means"unknown"for"someone"to"carry"out"a"task"without"thinking"about"it,"if"it"is"a"task" the"person"has"undertaken"repeatedly."In"some"circumstances,"the"trained"marksman"may"respond"to"a" threat"by"firing"at"the"source"of"that"threat"as"soon"as"the"threat"is"perceived,"and"may"do"so"without" hesitating"to"think."But"in"neither"example"could"it"be"said"that"the"act"(of"loading"or"firing"the"weapon)"was" an"unwilled"act."Similarly,"once"it"is"recognised"that"the"relevant"act"in"this"case"is"the"act"of"discharging"the" loaded"shotgun,"it"can"be"seen"that"whether"or"not"particular"elements"of"that"composite"set"of"movements" (load,"cock,"present,"fire)"were"the"subject"of"conscious"consideration"by"the"appellant,"there"is"no"basis"for" concluding"that"the"set"of"movements,"taken-as-a-whole,"was"not"willed."There"was"no"suggestion"of"disease" or"natural"mental"infirmity;"there"was"no"suggestion"of"sleep"walking,"epilepsy,"concussion,"hypoglycaemia" or"dissociative"state.”"

" Jiminez$ A"person"cannot"be"held"criminally"responsible"for"an"action"committed"while"asleep."Such"acts"are" necessarily"involuntary"" However,"the"accused"may"be"held"criminally"responsible"for"acts"committed"prior"to"falling"asleep,"such"as" driving"while"fatigued"and"aware"of"a"real"risk"of"falling"asleep." • The"relevant"period"-"immediately"before"falling"asleep"-"must"be"‘sufficiently"contemporaneous’"with" the"impact"" • It’s"not"when"Jiminez"was"asleep"as"then"he"was"unconscious"-"his"actions"were"involuntary;"AR"was" not"formed.$

s33(Crimes(Act(–(Wounding(or(grievous(bodily(harm(with(intent(…(MR"element)( (1)""Intent"to"cause"grievous"bodily"harm" """""""A"person"who:"" "(a)" wounds"any"person"or"" "(b)" causes"grievous"bodily"harm"to"any"person,"with"intent"to"cause"grievous"bodily"harm"to"that"or" any"other"person"…is"guilty"of"an"offence."Maximum"penalty:"Imprisonment"for"25"years."" (2)"Intent"to"resist"arrest" """"""A"person"who:" 4

(a)" wounds"any"person,"or"" (b)" causes"grievous"bodily"harm"to"any"person,"with"intent"to"resist"or"prevent"his"or" """""" her"(or"another"person’s)"lawful"arrest"or"detention"…is"guilty"of"an"offence."Maximum"penalty:" Imprisonment"for"25"years."" (3)" Alternative"verdict"" If"on"the"trial"of"a"person"charged"with"an"offence"against"this"section"the"jury"is"not"satisfied"that"the" offence"is"proven"but"is"satisfied"that"the"person"has"committed"an"offence"against"section"35,"the"jury" may"acquit"the"person"of"the"offence"charged"and"find"the"person"guilty"of"an"offence"against"section" 35."The"person"is"liable"to"punishment"accordingly."" " “...requires-proof-that-a-wounding-has-actually-taken-place-as-part-of-the-AR.-The-prosecution-does-nothave-to-prove-that-the-wound-amounted-to-grievous-bodily-harm.--It-could-be-a-relatively-minor-cut-.-Aslong-as-the-accused-wounded-someone-with-the-intent-to-cause-them-grievous-bodily-harm,-they-areguilty-of-the-offence-even-if-they-failed-to-effectuate-their-intent.”" Wilful(blindness" How"does"this"stand"with"intention,"knowledge"and"recklessness?" In"Crabbe((1985)"HC"stated:" “When"a"person"deliberately"refrains"from"making"inquiries"because"he"prefers"not"to"have"the"result," when"he"wilfully"shuts"his"eyes"for"fear"that"he"may"learn"the"truth,"he"may"for"some"purposes"be" treated"as"having"the"knowledge"which"he"deliberately"abstained"from"acquiring.”" But"requires"proof"that"the"accused"knew"the"death"was"probable."Wilful"blindness"did"not"add"to"this," so"not"relevant"in"the"context"of"murder." " Significance(of(He$Kaw$Teh( He"Kaw"Teh"was"sentenced"to"20"years"in"prison"on"two"convictions"for"offences"against"the"Customs--Act1901-(Cth)-as"it"then"was:" • Importing"2.7kg"of"heroin"contrary"to"s.233B(1)(b)" • Being"in"possession"of"that"heroin"contrary"to"s.233B(1)(c)" • Customs"officers"found"the"heroin"in"the"false"bottom"of"his"suitcase" • “...trial"judge"directed"the"jury"that"the"prosecution"did"not"have"to"show"any"specific"state"of"mind," whether"of"motive,"intention,"knowledge"or"advertence”" • He"Kaw"Teh"would"have"a"defence"to"count"(i)"if"he"could"prove"on"the"balance"of"probabilities"an" honest"and"reasonable"belief"of"facts"that"made"his"conduct"innocent" • On"count"(ii),"he"had"2"defences"–"(a)"reasonable"excuse"and"(b)"that"he"did"not"know"that"the"drug" had"been"imported"as"provided"in"s.233B(1A)"as"it"then"was."

" He-Kaw-Teh-is"authority"for"the"proposition"of"3"categories"of"MR"for"statutory"criminal"offences"those" in"which:" 1. There"is"an"original"obligation"on"the"prosecution"to"prove"mens"rea" 2. Mens"rea"will"be"presumed"to"be"present"unless"the"defence"advances"material"of"the"existence"of" honest"and"reasonable"belief"that"the"conduct"is"not"criminal"-"prosecution"must"negative"this" beyond"a"reasonable"doubt"(strict"liability)" 3. Mens"rea"plays"no"part"-"guilt"is"established"by"proof"of"the"objective"ingredients"of"the"offence" (absolute"liability)" " … If"statutory"offences"are"silent"on"MR,"approach"taken"is"to"put"them"into"category"2.""Courts"are" reluctant"to"impose"absolute"liability.""

5

2(|(The(Criminal(Process( " Summary(and(indictable(offences( (The"following"diagrams"were"originally"developed"by"Dr"Kate"Sainsbury.)"" Summary(offences:"those"heard"in"the"Magistrates’"Courts" " Indictable(offences" § not"triable"summarily" § triable"summarily"(Criminal$Procedures$Act$1986((NSW))" § Table"1:"unless"prosecution"or"accused"elects"indictment" s260(1)" § Table"2:"unless"prosecution"elects"indictments"260(2)" " Indictable/Triable(either(way/Summary(Offences( " Indictable(–"tried"in"District" Triable(either(way(–(Pt(2(-(See( " " Summary(–"tried"in"Local" or"Supreme"Court."Trial"by" jury"(s131)"[judge" determines"questions"of" law;"jury"determines" questions"of"fact]" Unless"accused"elects"to"be" tried"by"judge"alone"(s132)" [judge"determines"questions" of"law"and"questions"of"fact]"

"

Schedule(1( Table(1(–"summary"trial"unless" prosecuting"authority"OR"accused" elects"to"be"tried"on"indictment" (s267"max"penalty)" Table(2(–"summary"trial"unless" prosecuting"authority"elects"to"have" offence"dealt"with"on"indictment" (s268"max"penalty)"

The"Criminal"Process:"The"main"players" The"Scene"of"the"Crime" Offender( " " (also"decision"how"to" plead)"

court"summarily,"before"a" magistrate"[magistrate" determines"questions"of" fact"and"law]"

"

(

(Victim)(and/or(witness( § Perception"that"crime"has" occurred" § Willingness"to"report"to"police"

The"Police" Police( " § § § § § § § § § §

Decide"what"the"criminal"law"is,"extent"to"which"it"should"be"enforced" Response"to"victim,"witness"reports" Deal"with"the"accused" Questioning" Detention" Arrest/summons" Caution/"in/formal"warning" Further"investigation"of"case,"gathering"evidence" Election"of"charge,"mode"of"trial" Informing"DPP"re"more"serious"offences" Prosecuting"summary"offences"in"Local"Courts"

§ The"Lawyers" Defence(Lawyer( " § §

Advice"re"plea" Negotiations" with"prosecutor" Conduct"of"trial"

"

Director(of(Public(Prosecutions( § Discretion"to"prosecute" § Reasonable"prospect"of"conviction" § Public"interest"requires"

§ " The(Courts"" Court(of(first(instance:((Trier(of(fact( " Children’s,"Local,"District,"Supreme"Courts" 6

" § § §

Jury"–"in"District"and"Supreme"Courts" Judge"–"in"District"and"Supreme"Courts"on"election"of"accused" Magistrate"–"in"Local"Court"and"Children's"Court"

" Trier(of(law(and(sentencing:( § Judge"–"in"District"and"Supreme"Courts" § Magistrates"–"in"Local"Court"

The(appeal(process(( I."Appeals"from"Matters"heard"in"the"Local"Courts" " " Di s ttri ri c t Court " Accused: conv iction – rehearing on transcripts by " District Court judge (appeal by way of de novo retrial Loc al " abolished 1999); sentence (Ma gistr at es’ " ) " Prosec ution: sentence! " Court " " Sup Supreme reme C our ourtt " Against conviction, order or sentence: " § Upon a ground that involves a question of law Cour Courtt of Cri min al " alone App Appeal eal " § Upon a ground that involves a question of mixed " law and fact, but only with the leave of the District Court States a Supreme Court " Question of Law – s5B § Upon a ground that the conviction, order or " Criminal Appeal Act sentence cannot be supported having regard to " the evidence " " II."Appeal"from"District"or"Supreme"Court"Hearings" " Dis District trict or S Sup up reme " Co u rt of Cr imi nal A p pe pea al Cour Courtt § S5 appeal against sentence or conviction " § S5A question of law stated by judge on " indictment " § No appeal against conviction by prosecution, " but may submit related question of law to Hig h Cou rt – s34(1) Judicary Act – " CCA, with no effect on finding – s5A(2)(a) special leave must be granted – grounds " § S5C appeal by AG or DPP where SC or DC s35A " quashed or stayed information or indictment " § Questions of law of public importance, § S5D full Crown appeal against sentence " or to resolve the state of the law " § In the interests of the administration of " " "The(Criminal(Process((Brown$et$al(at(p(259)" ‘Crime-is-a-problematic,-contingent-and-historically-specific-phenomenon.--How-crime-andcriminal-law-are-apprehended-is-dependent-on-a-complex-range-of-historical,-economic,-political,ideological,-cultural,-moral-and-social-forces,-dependent-on-the-ways-knowledge-about-crime-isproduced-within-various-institutions-and-networks-of-power-relations.’" " " " " 7

The(two(tiers(of(justice((see(Brown$et$al(p(259)" McBarnet"–"describes"criminal"process"as"comprising"‘two"tiers"of"justice’.""This"term"is"used"to" highlight"the"significant"differences"between"summary"justice"administered"by"magistrates"and" higher"court"justice"administered"by"judges."McBarnet(argues(that:" • Higher"courts"are"for"public"consumption"-"the"arena"where"the"ideology"of"justice"is"put"on" display." • Lower"courts"are"deliberately"structured"in"defiance"of"the"ideology"of"justice"–"concerned" less"with"subtle"ideological"messages"than"with"direct"control."" • Paradoxically"the"vast"majority"of"matters"are"dealt"with"summarily"(i.e."by"lower"courts)." " § Summary(v(Indictable(offences" § Court(system(in(NSW" § Appeal(process(in(NSW" " The(process(of(punishment((Brown$et$al(p(260)" • Traditionally"pre-trial"processes"(administrative/investigatory)"are"distinguished"from"trial" processes"(adjudication"and"sentencing).""On"this"view"punishment"is"only"administered" AFTER"a"formal"finding"of"guilt,"with"punishment"being"the"consequence"of"this"finding." • Malcolm"Freely"(The-Process-of-Punishment,-1979)-challenges"this"view"–"to"many"people" caught"in"the"system"the"pre-trial"process"IS"the"punishment"(i.e."arrest,"detention,"denial"of" bail,"prolonged"pre-trial"custody"in"police"cells,"poor"treatment"in"custody"etc.)." " The((in)visibility(of(pre-trial(processes((Brown$et$al(p(260)" • Pre-trial"processes"have"commonly"been"seen"as"administrative"and"geared"at"investigation" and"bringing"of"suspects"before"the"court.""For"example,"the"extensive"sue"of"police" discretion"before"a"person"is"brought"to"trial"has"traditionally"been"an"in-visible"process.""" • There"have"however,"been"moves"in"recent"years"to"render"these"processes"open"to"more" visibility"(e.g."police"control"over"pre-trial"processes,"establishment"of"independent" prosecution"authorities,"centrality"of"the"guilty"plea"and"plea"bargaining)" " Technocratic(justice:(the(drive(for(efficiency((Brown$et$al(p(261)" • General"push"for"government"institutions"efficient"and"economically"rational" • This"has"included"a"drive"to"‘rationalise’"the"operations"of"the"criminal"justice"system." • E.g."expansion"of"summary"jurisdiction;"restrictions"on"committal"proceedings,"demise"of" the"jury"system,"moves"to"judge-only"trials"and"majority"verdicts,"pressures"to"reward"guilty" pleas"through"reduced"sentences,"sentence"indication"etc." • These"developments"are"not"uniform,"often"hard"to"justify"and"implement" " Therapeutic(jurisprudence(and(procedural(justice((Brown$et$al(p(261)" • A"movement"somewhat"at"odds"with"the"technocratic"push"is"the"therapeutic"movement."" Which"has"influenced"a"range"of"developments"in"Australia." • Significant"focus"here"on"‘procedural"fairness’" • E.g.(drug"courts,"magistrates"early"referral"into"treatment"programs;"intervention"orders" attached"to"bail"conditions,"domestic"violence"courts,"mental"health"courts,"Koorie"courts," circle"sentencing,"youth"justice"conferencing" • Efficiency"v"Fairne...