Royall v R - Important Case Notes PDF

Preview

Summary

Important Case Notes...

Description

Case: ROYALL V R (1991) 172 CLR 378

Legal i s s ues  

Concl usi ont oHomi ci de-Causat i oni nHomi ci de Whet heravol unt ar yact ,commi t t edbecaus eofwel lf oundedf r i ghtorsel fpr eser v at i on, br eakt hec hai nofcaus at i onr equi r edt oconst i t ut eanact usr eus ?

J udgement 

Al loft hej udgesmor eorl essagr eedont hegener alnot i ont hati ft hedef endanthar mst he vi ct i m,andt het hev i ct i mt henper f or msanactbecauseofar easonabl e,wel lf ounded appr ehensi onofphy s i calhar m( t hevi ct i m' sac tbei ngmor eorl essr easonabl easoppos edt o anov er r eact i on) ,t hant hechai nofcausat i oni snotbr ok en,andt hedef endantwoul dbe consi der edas' caus i ng' t hatactandi t sconsequenc es.



Thej udgess l i ght l ydi ffer edi nt hei rex ac tf or mul at i on( i e,t he' t es t ' used)t odet er mi newhet her t hec hai nofc ausat i onhasbeenbr ok en.

MasonCJ: 

The' nat ur alcons equence' t es t-wast hev ol unt ar yactoft hedec easedwasanat ur al consequenc eoft hepr ev i ousact soft hedef endant ?



' . . . wher et hec onductoft heaccus edi nducesi nt hev i ct i m awel l f oundedappr ehensi onof phy s i cal har ms uchast omak ei tanat ur alconsequenc e( orr eas onabl e)t hatt hev i ct i m woul d seekt oes capeandt hev i ct i mi si nj ur edi nt hecour s eofescapi ng,t hei nj ur yi sc ausedbyt he [ 1] accus ed' sconduct ' .

Deane&DawsonJ J: 

The' oper at i ngands ubst ant i alcause' t est-wast hedef endant ' sconductwasas ubst ant i alor oper at i v ecaus eofdeat h?



Ther ei snoneedf oras i ngl ecauseofdeat h.Rat her ,t her ei sa' chai nofev ent s ' whi chal l cont r i but e.Asl ongast hedef endant ' sact i onwasapar toft hatc hai n( andt hec hai nwasn' t br ok enbyani nt er v eni ngev ent ) ,hewi l lbec onsi der edascausi ngt hei nj ur y .



Anov er r eac t i on( i e,anunr easonabl er eac t i ont ot ot heact i onsoft hedef endant )c anbr eakt he chai nofcausat i on.Howev er ,r eas onabl eact i onsper f or medi nr eact i onwi l l notbr eakt he chai n.

In criminal law, causation essentially describes a ‘cause and effect’ relationship between the defendant’s actions and the harm suffered by the alleged victim.

In order to establish a defendant’s guilt, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that his or her actions were a ‘substantial and significant cause’ of the harm. This means that although other factors may have contributed to the harm suffered, the defendant can in certain circumstances still be found criminally responsible. Homicide cases are often useful to illustrate the law relating to causation. In the important case of Royall v R [1991] HCA 27, Kelly Louise Healey died after falling from the window of a sixth floor apartment. It was alleged that prior to her death, she had been engaged in a violent argument with her boyfriend, Mr Royall. At trial, the prosecution put forward three possible explanations for her death: 1. That Mr Royall had pushed her out of the window, 2. That she had fallen whilst attempting to avoid an attack by Mr Royall, and 3. That she died whilst trying to escape ‘life-threatening violence.’ It was held that even though Ms Healey may have directly brought about her own death by jumping out the window, Mr Royall was ultimately responsible for her death as he created a ‘well founded apprehension that she would be subjected to further violence’ if she remained in the apartment. Accordingly, the court found that Royall’s actions were the ‘substantial or significant cause’ of Ms Healey’s death. Adopting the approach of Burt CJ in Campbell v The Queen, 6 a majority of the High Court in Royall agreed that the question of causation is not a philosophical or a scientific question, but a question to be determined by the jury applying their common sense to the facts as they find them. A majority of the judges also accepted that an accused person will not be held criminally responsible unless his or her act is a ‘substantial’ cause of the death.8 In this context, ‘substantial cause’ means a cause that is ‘something more than de minimis’. Thus, on the basis of the authority in Royall, it is generally accepted that an accused person is criminally responsible for the consequences of his or her act if the act is a 2 Kenneth J Arenson, ‘Causation in the Criminal Law: A Search for Doctrinal Consistency’ (1996) 20 Criminal Law Journal 189, 211.

As discussed in greater detail in Part III, Section B below, the statutory provisions relating to criminal responsibility inch of the Criminal Code arise for consideration only after the essential conduct elements including causation (and the relevant mental elements) of a given offence have first been established. In determining whether or not the accused’s act was a substantial or significant cause of the death, the jury must apply their common sense to the facts as they find them. Where in a case of that kind the charge is murder, the prosecution must not only prove that the accused caused the death by inducing a well-rounded fear or apprehension on that part of the accused such as to make it a natural consequence that he or she shoulf take steps to flee or escape, but it must also prove that the words ot conduct which induced that fear or apprehension were accompanied by the intent which is a necessary ingredient of the crime of murder. In NSW, where the common law concept of malice aforethought is replaced by the statutory formula contained in s 18 of the Crimes Act, the requisite intent is a reckless indifference to human life, or an intent to kill or an intent to inflict grievous bodily harm upon some person....