In this case of The State of Western Australia v Mulley, it involves a dead body, therefore the offence of homicide is considered. Under s277 it defines homicide to be “any person who unlawfully kills another is guilty of a crime which, according to the circumstances of the case, may be murder or manslaughter”. The offence of murder is established under this section of homicide, therefore this case can be tried under the offence of murder. For the offence of murder to be enacted, three elements have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, these include ‘another person’, ‘kills’, and ‘unlawfully’.
The first element of a murder offence is ‘another person’. A person is defined as “a human being, whether an adult or child”. This is not controversial, …show more content…
The term kills is defined as “any person who causes the death of another, directly or indirectly by any means whatever, is deemed to have killed that other person”. The accused in this case, has directly shot at the victim six times with a gun, and of those six bullets four penetrated the victim. At this point the victim was still alive. The accused then chased the wounded victim with a knife. During this chase, the victim was hit by the car of Hoon Daly. Daly’s car hit the victim at 80km/hr, and the victim died instantly. Even though the victim died after being hit by the car, the death is still criminally responsible by the accused. This is so, due to that fact that the term ‘kills’ states that a death can be caused either directly or indirectly and still constitutes killing. The accused had the intention to directly kill the victim with either his gun or knife, yet the accused only managed to directly wound the victim. Despite that, the accused pursued a knife chase of the victim with again the intention to directly kill, however this chase indirectly led to her getting hit by the car. Therefore, the accused indirectly killed the victim. Thus, this element can be proven beyond reasonable …show more content…
For the first form of murder to constitute, an intention to kill is required. Intention is an element of the fault elements, and therefore has to be proven in order to convict an accused of this offence. Under ss5.2(1) and 5.2(3) of the Criminal Code Act 1913 (WA), indicates that a person has the fault element of intention if “they have intention with respect to conduct if they mean to engage in that conduct” and if “they have intention with respect to a result if they mean to bring it about or are aware that it will occur in the ordinary course of events”. The accused has an intention to kill in both these regards. The accused “means to engage in that conduct”, as he brought weapons that are known to cause harm to others and are also illegal, with an intention to “make some random student pay” (to kill). This is apparent as he directly shot the so called random student six times, then as the victim did not die from the bullets, the accused chased after the victim with a knife. Both of these actions show an intent to kill. This is also apparent for the third type of intention, as the accused clearly knew what he was doing and did so with the intention to bring about the death of another. Thus, the first form of murder – intention to kill – can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, as a section to be convicted under for this particular case. In order for the
The first element of a murder offence is ‘another person’. A person is defined as “a human being, whether an adult or child”. This is not controversial, …show more content…
The term kills is defined as “any person who causes the death of another, directly or indirectly by any means whatever, is deemed to have killed that other person”. The accused in this case, has directly shot at the victim six times with a gun, and of those six bullets four penetrated the victim. At this point the victim was still alive. The accused then chased the wounded victim with a knife. During this chase, the victim was hit by the car of Hoon Daly. Daly’s car hit the victim at 80km/hr, and the victim died instantly. Even though the victim died after being hit by the car, the death is still criminally responsible by the accused. This is so, due to that fact that the term ‘kills’ states that a death can be caused either directly or indirectly and still constitutes killing. The accused had the intention to directly kill the victim with either his gun or knife, yet the accused only managed to directly wound the victim. Despite that, the accused pursued a knife chase of the victim with again the intention to directly kill, however this chase indirectly led to her getting hit by the car. Therefore, the accused indirectly killed the victim. Thus, this element can be proven beyond reasonable …show more content…
For the first form of murder to constitute, an intention to kill is required. Intention is an element of the fault elements, and therefore has to be proven in order to convict an accused of this offence. Under ss5.2(1) and 5.2(3) of the Criminal Code Act 1913 (WA), indicates that a person has the fault element of intention if “they have intention with respect to conduct if they mean to engage in that conduct” and if “they have intention with respect to a result if they mean to bring it about or are aware that it will occur in the ordinary course of events”. The accused has an intention to kill in both these regards. The accused “means to engage in that conduct”, as he brought weapons that are known to cause harm to others and are also illegal, with an intention to “make some random student pay” (to kill). This is apparent as he directly shot the so called random student six times, then as the victim did not die from the bullets, the accused chased after the victim with a knife. Both of these actions show an intent to kill. This is also apparent for the third type of intention, as the accused clearly knew what he was doing and did so with the intention to bring about the death of another. Thus, the first form of murder – intention to kill – can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, as a section to be convicted under for this particular case. In order for the