You are on page 1of 4

CRIMINAL LAW

LARRISA LIU

MENS REA OF HOMICIDE
Criminal Law- Spring Semester

Jjones. but reckless indifference to human life is a mens rea element for murder. Act or omission – omission. Excessive self-defence. Unlawful and dangerous act. Substantial impairment.Wilson 2. Manslaughter by criminal negligence. 2.section 4 of gbh Reckless indifference to human life (Crabbe) (Royall) Constructive murder (Ryan) (Munro) The mens rea for manslaughter. so is the intent to kill and intent to inflict gbh.“the operating and substantiating cause” Death (SECTION 33 of the HUMAN TISSUE ACT) Of a human being (born alive) – s20 of the Crimes Act (murder) Ibymanslaughter MENS REA: Murder= section 18 (1) (A) 1. there are two types of mens rea for manslaughter: section 18 (1) (b) 1.Podcast 8. Stone v Dobinson.Wilson 2. Taktak Causing. Constructive murder is also discussed here. MURDER MENS REA 1.Nydam and Lavender OVERVIEW OF UNLAWFUL HOMICIDE: ACTUS REUS: 1.section 4 of gbh Reckless indifference to human life (Crabbe) (Royall) Constructive murder (Ryan) (Munro) Involuntary Manslaughter= Section 18 (b) 1. Provocation: s23 of the Crimes Act 2. 2.Nydam and Lavender Voluntary manslaughter. Intent to kill Intent to cause gbh. 4. 4. Unlawful and dangerous act. Intent to kill .mens rea for murder proved but conviction reduced to manslaughter because of a defence: (defences studied in class nine and ten) 1. 4.Royall.s23A of the Crimes Act 3.section 421 of the Crimes Act Section 18 of the Crimes Act is more of an emphasis on the actus reus component of homicide.1 notes Class eight podcasts examine: The mens rea for murder: There are four types of mens rea SECTION 18 (1) (A) 1.duty to act. Intent to kill Intent to cause gbh. Hallet. Blaue. 3. 2. 3. Manslaughter by criminal negligence. 3.

. he does the act expecting that death or grievous bodily harm will be the likely result. for the word “probable” means likely to happen. LAWFUL JUSTIFICATION OR EXCUSE: An example of this would be a surgeon. even though they foresaw death Distinguishing from foresight of consequences and the foresight of circumstances: The test is whether they knew if their action caused death or grievous bodily harm. the trial judge’s directions can be found at p441-442  The key issue in this case is the degree of knowledge required: knowledge that death or gbh is a probable consequence – not a possibility but a probable consequence  Resolving authorites.p 443. Tas p445. Intent to inflict GBH outlined in section four of the Ccrimes Act: Common law meaning of gbh: DPPv Smith. “If the accused knows when he does an act that death or grievous bodily harm is a probable consequence. Royall approved Annakin: Misdirection to equate the he might well cause death and “death might well result” which means that it could happen.intention to cause harm which knew was likely to cause death. knowing that it was possible but not likely that the death or grievous bodily harm might result.The principle is on p 443 CRABBE (1985) HC Full Court. probable means likely.section 18 (1) (A)  (Crabbe) 1985. MEANING OF PROBABLE CONSEQUENCE:. Faure: “Probable” as distinct from possible but not likely.“probable consequence”. if no statutory provision affects the position.Criminal Code. Reckless indifference to human lfe. Wilful Blindness MEANING OF PROBABLE:     Crabbe p443.reckless indifference to human life at COMMON LAW      RATIO (page443): It should now be regarded as settled law in Australia. Boughey (1986).2. Haoui and King 3.p442-423 : . Probable rather than possible is the preferred method.reckless indifference to human life at common law. chance.expecting that death or grievous bodily harm will be the likely result . relevance of lack of social purpose: A surgeon performs a hazardous but necessary operation.La Fontaine v The Queen: Not murder unless the accused foresaw that death or gbh was a probable consequence of the accused’s actions. meant a substantial. with reckless indifference to human life . whether or not it is more than 50% Annakin. that a person who without lawful justification or excuse does an act knowing that is probable that the death of grievous bodily harm will result is guilty of murder if the death in fact results. or real and not remote. There is an expectation the grievous bodily harm or death is to happen. It is not enough that he does an act.Stephen’s Digest of Criminal law : .Preamble v The Queen .

Royall (1991) page 448 Does not matter the precise manner of death or that the accused intended death to happen in a certain manner. There is irrelevance to the method of causing death. .