R v Crabbe - Summary PDF

Preview

Summary

Case summary on 'probability' of death or GBH...

Description

R v Crabbe (1985) 16 A Crim R 19

Court: High Court of Australia

Procedural History: Defendant appealed to Full Federal Court; The Crown then appealed

Material Facts: Douglas Crabbe, the defendant visited a bar in Ayers Rock, already having consumed a substantial amount of alcohol. He was thrown out (physically) for being a nuisance and annoyance. Later that night he drove his Mack prime mover with trailer through the wall and into the bar. Five people were killed and many more were injured. He did nothing to assist the victims but left the bar.

Issues: (for the Court to consider whether it constitutes murder) Is actual knowledge or foresight of consequences of an act necessary? Does the defendant have to foresee the ‘possibility’ or the ‘probability’ of harm?

Principles/Ratio Decidendi For the mens rea head of recklessness, the jury must be satisfied that the defendant foresaw the ‘probability’ of death or GBH as opposed to ‘possibility’. Royall had shown that the defendant’s foresight of ‘possibility’ of death is sufficient. A distinction can be drawn between the foresight of the consequences of an act – what harm would it do if people were in a position to be affected by it when it occurred and a foresight of consequences of the fact that persons were in a position to be affected. “It should now be regarded as settled law in Australia, if no statutory provision affects the position, that a person who, without lawful justification or excuse, does an act knowing that it is probable that death or grievous bodily harm will result, is guilty of murder if death in fact results. It is not enough that he does the act knowing that it is possible but not likely that death or grievous bodily harm might result.”

If an accused knows when he does an act that death or grievous bodily harm is a probable consequence, he does the act expecting that death or grievous bodily harm will be the likely result, for the word “probable” means likely to happen. That state of mind is comparable with an intention to kill or to do grievous bodily harm. The High Court termed it as ‘reckless indifference to human life’. [Possibility is] not a case of murder even if death ensues, unless death or grievous bodily harm is intended.

Held: guilty of murder on ground that the defendant acted with ‘probability’ of death or GBH....