Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
17 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Elements of homicide |
s160 Crimes Act 1961 - the Crown must establish that a death is: A homicide One of the types of culpable homicide. The standard of proof: the Crown must prove this beyond reasonable doubt. |
|
|
Homicide |
Defined under s158 of the Crimes Act 1961 as the "killing of a human being by another, directly or indirectly, by any means whatsoever". Three elements: Killing, human being, by another human being. |
|
|
The offender |
By another = by another human being. Suicide is not homicide- not a crime in NZ. Killing someone with their consent would be homicide - irrelevant whether they consented (s63) - no one has the right to consent to death. Companies are not liable for homicide. |
|
|
The victim |
s158 - the victim must be a living human being at the time of the killing. Maybe killing of an unborn child (s 182) Procuring an abortion (s183 and s187A) s159 - killing of a child - living state from its mother. |
|
|
Causing death |
Directly or indirectly by any means whatsoever. Question of intervening cause broke the chain of causation, in which case the defendant would not be criminally liable for the death. |
|
|
Intervening cause R v Pagett |
"A novus actus interveniens...act was so independent of the act of the accused that it should be regarded in law as the cause of the victim's death, to the exclusion of the act of the accused" |
|
|
R v Pagett (facts) |
Defendant shot at police officers, defendant had kidnapped a 16 year old girl who was pregnant with his child - used her as a human shield and she died. Two unlawful things: shooting at police, and using victim as a shield. The immediate cause of death was police fire - this did not break the chain of causation. Reasonable act performed for the purpose of self-preservation OR in execution of a legal duty and caused D's act. |
|
|
Year and a day rule - s162 |
Retains the common law rule that death must occur within a year and a day after the cause of death (s162). This rule has been abolished in the UK. Arguably should be abolished in NZ - gives defendant benefit to when the victim dies. |
|
|
Year and a day rule: Life Support |
R v Trounson - argued the doctor broke chain of causation. Held life support was withdrawn in good faith, truly believe there was no help for survival. The doctors do not need to consider the criminal responsibility of the defendant when making that choice. R v Tarei - Crown does not have to prove the victim would not have survived beyond 1 year and 1 day. |
|
|
No psychological causation s163 |
No criminal responsibility for killing by "influence on the mind alone" or "any disorder or disease arising from such influence". Exceptions for killing by wilfully frightening children under 16 or sick people. |
|
|
Acceleration of death s164 |
The victims own condition of essentially dying a few years earlier will not be the novus actus that breaks the chain of causation. |
|
|
Auckland Area Health Board v A-G |
Patient on life support - doctors concerned they would be prosecuted for murder. Held: withdrawal of life support is not the legal cause of death when the doctors have no legal duty to continue it (s151) or there was lawful excuse for withdrawal. |
|
|
Hutt District Health Board |
Child with dislodged tube - chose not to reinsert the tube. Lawful excuse not to reinsert the tube. The law draws a distinction between withdrawing/withholding and doing something positive to bring about death. |
|
|
Seales v A-G |
If the doctor administrated or provided the drug to end the patient's life even with their consent, they would be prosecuted for homicide (s179). Cannot consent to death (s63) Double effect principle (Thomas Aquinas) - intentional effects vs. unintentional effects. |
|
|
Causing preventable death R v Blaue |
Stabbed by defendant but declined a blood transfusion even though he knew he would die. The defendant could still be convicted of manslaughter. The refusal of treatment did not break the chain of causation. The defendant must take the victim as they find them |
|
|
Refusal of medical treatment will not break the chain of causation s11 BORA |
There is a right to refuse medical treatment - does not relieve the defendant of criminal liability. |
|
|
Removal of life support in good faith also does not break the chain of causation |
R v Trounson |
