Criminal Law Notes – PDF

Preview

Summary

Comprehensive notes of all defences covered in Criminal Law II ...

Description

Table of Contents Provocation – s245 and s246..............................................................................................5 Self – defence – all or nothing defence...............................................................................5 s248 where we start.....................................................................................................................6 s248 (4)........................................................................................................................................6 Rodrigues v Ainsworth (2014) WASC 101 –...............................................................................................7 Francis v Todd (2011) WASC 185 –.............................................................................................................7 Goodwyn v the State of Western Australia (2013) 45 WAR 328 –............................................................8

The reasonable person test – s248...............................................................................................8 Raux v WA (2012) WASC 1 –......................................................................................................................8 Kerber v Towler (2014) WASC 419 –..........................................................................................................8 R v Prow (1989) 42 A Crim R 343 –............................................................................................................9 cf R v Ellem (1994) 75 A Crim R 370...........................................................................................................9

s251 – Defence of movable property against trespassers –.................................................9 s251 – Defence of movable property against trespassers –.................................................9 s252 – Defence of movable property with claim of right...................................................10 s253 – Defence of movable property without claim of right..............................................10 s254 – Defence of property against trespassers, removal of disorderly persons................10 s255 Defence of possession of a place with claim of right –..............................................11 s244 – Defence against Home Invasion –..........................................................................11 Home Invasion definitions –.............................................................................................11 s144............................................................................................................................................11 James v Sievwright (2003) WASCA 251...................................................................................................12

Battered wife syndrome – misnomer?..............................................................................13 Lavellee v R (1990) 1 SCR 852..................................................................................................................13 cf Osland v R (1998) 197 CLR 316............................................................................................................13 The State of Western Australia v Carlino (No 2) (2014) WASC 404.........................................................14

Duress and Emergency –...................................................................................................14 DURESS – complete defence. Leads to an acquittal.................................................................15 a.

Queen v Stern.................................................................................................................................15

s32 Duress –...............................................................................................................................16 Elements are s32 Duress –.........................................................................................................16 -

-

Taiapa.............................................................................................................................................16 Morris (2006) 201 FLR 325.............................................................................................................19 Morris.............................................................................................................................................19

s32(2)(c).............................................................................................................................21 -

Oblach............................................................................................................................................21 Taiapa v R (2009) 261 ALR 488.......................................................................................................22

Voluntary Exposure to Duress –...............................................................................................23  s32(3).................................................................................................................................23

Emergency s25.................................................................................................................24 Loughan (1981) VR 443............................................................................................................................24 R v Dudley and Stephens (1994) 14 QBD 372..........................................................................................25 Re A (Children) (2000) 4 All ER 961..........................................................................................................25

United States v Holmes (1842) 26 Federal Cases 360.............................................................................25 Ross (1854) Legge 857.............................................................................................................................25

Nature of the Emergency –.......................................................................................................26 Threat from another –.................................................................................................................26 R v Loughman (1981) VR 443...................................................................................................................26 Rogers (1996) 86 Crim R 542 –................................................................................................................26

Risk to Another? –......................................................................................................................26 R v White (1987) 9 NSWLR 427 –.............................................................................................................26 R v Willer (1986) 83 Cr App R 224 –.........................................................................................................26

‘Sudden or extraordinary’ How sudden does the emergency have to be?....................................26 R v Loughnan (1981) VR 443....................................................................................................................26 Re F (Mental Patient: Sterilisation)(1990) 2 AC 1....................................................................................26 R v Rogers (1996) 86 A Crim R 542 –.......................................................................................................26

Reasonable Grounds –................................................................................................................27 Reasonable Response to an Emergency –...................................................................................27 R v Martin (1989) 1 All ER 652 –..............................................................................................................27 R v Loughnan (1981) VR 443 –.................................................................................................................27

Proportionality –.........................................................................................................................27 R v Davidson (1969) VR 667 –..................................................................................................................27 Rogers (1996) 86 A Crim 542 –................................................................................................................27

When can we use necessity?.......................................................................................................27

Unwilled Acts and Accident – s23, s23A, s23B...................................................................28 s23. Intention and motive.....................................................................................................28 s23A. Unwilled acts and omissions.....................................................................................28    

s23B.    o o

Kaporonovski v The Queen (1973) 133 CLR 209............................................................................29 Vallance..........................................................................................................................................29 Murray v The Queen......................................................................................................................29 Ryan v The Queen..........................................................................................................................29

Accident....................................................................................................................30 Kaporonovski v The Queen (1973) 133 CLR 209............................................................................30 R v Wat..........................................................................................................................................30 R v Fitzgerald..................................................................................................................................30 Hubert (1993) 67 A Crim R 181......................................................................................................30 R v T (1996) 91 A Crim R 152..........................................................................................................30

Insanity s27......................................................................................................................31         

M’Naghten’s Case (1843) 10 Cl & F 200.........................................................................................32 R v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182.........................................................................................................32 R v Porter........................................................................................................................................32 Sodeman v The King (1936) 55 CLR 192.........................................................................................32 Sodeman v The King (1936) 55 CLR 192.........................................................................................32 R v Moore (1908) 10 WAR 64.........................................................................................................33 R v Falconer....................................................................................................................................33 R v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182.........................................................................................................33 Cooper v McKenna.........................................................................................................................33

Capacities –................................................................................................................................33  

Stapleton v The Queen (1952) 86 CLR 358....................................................................................33 R v Windle [1952] 2 QB 826...........................................................................................................33

Delusions – WA s27 second paragraph.......................................................................................33 Incapacity NOT amounting to insanity........................................................................................33     

Hawkins v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 500....................................................................................33 R v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182.........................................................................................................34 R v Kemp [1957] 1 QB 399.............................................................................................................34 Braty v Atorney-General for Northern Ireland [1963] AC 386.....................................................34 R v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30......................................................................................................34



Falconer..........................................................................................................................................35

Western Australia – Mental Impairment –...............................................................................35 “Sane” versus “Insane” automatism...........................................................................................35

Intoxication s28 –.............................................................................................................36 “Unintended” intoxication –.......................................................................................................36  

R v Kusu (1980) 4 A Crim R 72 @ 77..............................................................................................37 R v Hardie (1984) 3 All ER 848........................................................................................................37

Intentional Intoxication –...........................................................................................................37 Relationship to Other Defences –...............................................................................................37

Mistake – s22 and s24 –....................................................................................................37 Mistake of Law – s22 – Honest Claim of Right.............................................................................38 Ignorance of the law...................................................................................................................39 Honest Claim of Right.................................................................................................................39 Relating to property –.................................................................................................................39 Walden v Hensler (1987) 29 A Crim R 85.................................................................................................39 Molina v Zaknich (2001) 24 WAR 562......................................................................................................39

For an act done or omited with respect to any property...........................................................39 R v Walsh (1984) 2 Qd R 407...................................................................................................................39

In the exercise of an honest claim of right without intention to defraud....................................40 Mistake of Fact s24.....................................................................................................................40  Person................................................................................................................................40 

GJ Coles & Co Ltd v Goldsworthy...................................................................................................40

 Honestly held – positive belief...........................................................................................40  Reasonable?.......................................................................................................................41  The existence of any state of things...................................................................................42  Distinguishing a mistake of FACT from a mistake of LAW –................................................42 To any greater extent than if the real state of things had been such as believed to exist...........43 Exclusion by the express or implied provisions of the law relating to the subject......................43 Honest Claim of Right – s22........................................................................................................43

Parties and Common Purpose –........................................................................................44 Parties to an Offence – s7...........................................................................................................44  s7(a) – is the person who actually commits the crime.......................................................44  s7(b) – is labelled as an enabler – it is any person completing an act/omission for the purpose of enabling or aiding a person to commit the offence. Generally this person is not present at the crime scene.........................................................................................................44  s7(c) – is labelled as an enabler – it is any person who aids another in committing the offence........................................................................................................................................45  s7(d) – is labelled as a counsellor/procurer – any person who counsels or procures a person to commit the offence.....................................................................................................45 s8 –.............................................................................................................................................46 s10 – Accessory After the fact.....................................................................................................46 s562 – Provision of being an accessory after the fact..................................................................46

Criminal Law II Notes – What are defences? Why is it ok to punch someone because they insulted you? Generally it is not ok to punch someone unless there is a racial under tone. Sometimes the law says it is ok. Can an insult ever be so grave that you have no control over your actions? Look at the cases that state what a grave moral insult. What is an insult so severe that provocation is a defence? Look at derogative terms, but look at them in a context. Is there a gender bias? More likely to be successful if it is a male rather than a female. So the courts will be more lenient towards male defence of provocation. Objective element is that women are less likely to react. There is nothing that states it is women or men defence, but it has evolved liked this. Possibly. Heat of the moment – loss of self control. Impulse reaction from men. Are you more likely to use provocation as a defence if a man provokes you rather than a woman. Subjective and objective elements to provocation. Subjective – age, gender etc Defences have elements. Difference is that the prosecution has to negate the defence. Kirkham v The Queen (1837) 8 C & P 115, 199 – cited in Hart v R (2003) 27 WAR 441: “Though the law condescends to human frailty, it will not indulge human ferocity. It considers man to be a rational being and requires that he should exercise a reasonable control over his passions”. Should be able to have complete control of how you react to things. Your anger, your emotions, flying off the handle etc. Will you be more likely to be able to control yourself? A person should be able to walk awa...