Criminal Law Notes - Murder PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Criminal Law Notes - Murder PDF

Description

Murder Introduction to Murder  

In NSW common law offence of murder has been replaced with the statutory provision where the relevant section for homicide is Section 18. Section 18(1)(a) requires the prosecution to prove:

ACTUS REUS MENS REA

 There must be a voluntary act or omission on the part of the accused; AND  That act, or omission must cause death of a person The accused’s act or omission was done:  With reckless indifference to human life; OR  With intent to kill; OR  With intent to commit grievous bodily harm; OR  While attempting or during immediately after the accused or an accomplice was committing a crime punishable by life or 25 years. Known as Constructive murder. For constructive murder the prosecution needs to prove the actus reus and mens rea of the felony and only the actus reus of the murder.  Both the Actus Reus and Mens Rea occurred at the same time.

Intention to kill / Intention to inflict grievous bodily harm     

If a person kills another with the intent to kill them or to inflict grievous bodily harm, this is defined as murder. Section 18 (1)(a) reflects the common law statement regarding intent. In exams need to examine whether an accused had the relevant intention (to kill or inflict GBH). Definition under common law but the crimes act has added. Perks (1986) 41 SASR 335: husband strangled wife, trial judge said you can find that he intended to cause GBH if he intended to cause serious bodily harm. This set the bar too low therefore they said ‘really serious bodily harm’

Reckless indifference to Human Life  

This looks at if an individual had the ‘recognition of the probability of death’. This is a subjective standard that requires that the accused recognised that death was likely or probable.

Temporal Coincidence   

  

The basic rule is that there must be some sort of temporal coincidence between the mens rea and actus reus. This means that at the time of the criminal act the accused must also have the guilty intent. Reaffirmed in case: Meyers (1997) 147 ALR; the deceased died from head injuries inflicted by the accused during an altercation. There was some suggestion that, although the accused had assaulted the deceased in other ways, she had died after striking her head on a low table or the floor, when he pushed her away to get to the phone. The High Court concluded that, if the jury accepted this version of events, the accused would only have been guilty of manslaughter, even if he had the necessary mens rea for murder during the earlier assaults. Case: Thabo v Meli [1954] 1 ALL ER 373 Case: Church [1966] QB 59 Case: Le Brun [1992] 1 QB 61; no preconceived plan to attack the victim

Case: Crabbe (1985) 156 CLR 464 







The respondent had finished work and consumed a substantial amount of alcohol. He then visited the Inland Motel and drank in a crowded bar. His behaviour in the bar caused nuisance and annoyance and he was physically ejected from the bar. In early hours of the morning following this incident he returned to the motel. He drove his vehicle through the wall and into the bar; as a result, five people died, and many were injured. The respondent did nothing to assist the injured but left the motel. He was apprehended the following day. The trial judge was incorrect in his directions when he set the threshold of foreseeability as a mere possibility of causing death or grievous bodily harm. The mental state necessary to constitute murder is ‘knowledge by the accused that his acts will probably cause death or grievous bodily harm’. Section 18 in Royall: reckless indifference to human life gets rid of grievous bodily harm therefore only foresight of probability of death.

Case: R v Schonewille [1998] 2 VR 625

   

 

The accused was charged with the murder of a 61-year-old woman. He was 15 years old at the time of the killing and stabbed the victim in the course of robbing her. His defence to the charge of murder was that he had acted without intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm and he pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The accused was convicted of murder and applied for leave to appeal against conviction on the ground of misdirection of the jury regarding intent. It was held; granting leave to appeal, allowing the appeal and ordering a re-trial: (1) The judge misdirected the jury on intent. His directions did not express to the jury in clear terms that the burden was upon the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the only inference open from the facts, as found, was that, at the time when he stabbed the deceased, the accused had the intention to kill her or inflict grievous bodily harm and that if anything which the accused said to the police caused them to have reservations about drawing such an inference, the benefit of such doubt should go to the accused. He brought in a subjective standard by saying ‘ordinarily we do intend the consequence of our actions’ Only reasonable inference on the facts (for burden of proof)

Case: R v Taber; R v Styman [2002] NSWSC 1239 







On 19 January 2001, Mrs Joy Golbie Alchin was found dead in her house at 23 Spies Avenue, Greenwell Point. Mrs Alchin was lying face down on a mattress on her bedroom floor. Her wrists and ankles were tied together with grey duct tape and cable ties. There was a pair of underpants folded to form a wad against Mrs Alchin’s mouth and a pillowcase had been placed over her head. There was duct tape wound tightly around her mouth, lower jaw and neck. According to an autopsy report tendered by the Crown, Mrs Alchin had died between 1 pm on 5 January 2001 and 12 pm on 19 January 2001, but more likely some time between 16 and 18 January 2001. The immediate cause of death was smothering and dehydration associated with restraint. It was the Crown case that the appellants, Ian Styman and Peter Taber, together with Shannon Styman, broke into Mrs Alchin’s house in the early hours of 7 January 2001, bound and gagged her, robbed her of over $23,000 and then abandoned her. The appellants, in their evidence at trial, contended that Shannon Styman, without their participation, attacked Mrs Alchin and tied her up before arriving at Taber’s house at 3 am on 7 January 2001. The appellants, on this basis, denied playing any part in the attack. Shannon Styman, however, asserted that he was part of a joint attack and pleaded guilty before the trial began to the charge of robbery in company of the other two offenders and gave evidence accordingly. All charged with murder and appealed. Appealed on the grounds that the trial Judge erred in law in not directing verdicts of acquittal on all counts at the close of the Crown case on the basis that there was no evidence that the conduct of the appellants caused the death of Mrs Alchin. It was also contended that his Honour erred in law in misdirecting and/or failing to direct the jury adequately or properly in respect of murder, manslaughter, the legal duty to rescue, causation and joint enterprise. Other grounds of appeal



relied on by the appellants included that the verdicts of the jury on all counts were unreasonable and that the sentences imposed were excessive. The appeal was allowed with orders of a new trial for each person being charged with the act of manslaughter....