Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Week 4 Homicide Homicide is terminology to describe the death of a…

- - - - not defined in the QCC but can said to be;
        as irreversible cessation of the circulation of blood in the body of a person or irreversible cessation of all functions of the brain.
    - - Causation is the link between what the accused has done or omitted (failed to do) and the death of another person.
        If the chain of causation is broken, the accused will not be held criminally responsible for the death.
        Causation is a question of fact, determined by an assessment of all the facts and circumstances of the case.
        
        Campbell v R [1981] WAR 286 at 290 per Burt CJ
        held the jury is to determine the issue of causation by applying common sense to the facts.
        
        Royall v R (1991) 172 CLR 378
        deceased fell from a bathroom window after a dispute with the accused. It was alleged by the prosecution that the accused had pushed or forced the deceased out of the window, the deceased was retreating from further attack, or the deceased apprehended life-threatening violence if she remained in the bathroom and had to escape by jumping out of the window
        
        The court stated:
        the rules concerning causation are in an inconsistent and unsatisfactory state in cases where harm to the victim has occurred because of the subsequent acts or omissions of the victim or a third party. This branch of the law is in evident need of rationalisation.
        
        reasonable foresight test
        Deane and Dawson JJ stated:
        Where the charge is murder, the prosecution must not only prove that the accused caused the death by inducing a well-founded consequence that he or she should take steps to flee or escape, but it must also prove that words or conduct which induced that fear or apprehension were accompanied by the intent which is a necessary ingredient of the crime of murder. Of course, there may be no single cause of the death of the deceased, but if the accused’s conduct is a substantial or significant cause of death, that will be sufficient, given the requisite intent, to sustain a conviction for murder. #
        
        R v Smith [1959] 2 QB 35
        the death of a man was caused by a bayonet wound in the back that pierced a lung causing a haemorrhage. Another person tried to get him medical attention but dropped him on two occasions. The medical officer was busy attending to other injuries and did not appreciate the seriousness of the man’s condition. He administered a transfusion of saline solution, but it failed. It was held that the bayonet wound was the operating cause and substantial cause of death.
        
        The decision is significant establishing the substantial cause test. Therefore, the defendant’s conduct does not need to be the sole cause of the death of the victim.
        
        R v Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279
        In Pagett the accused was armed with a shotgun and cartridges and used a pregnant girl as a shield to protect him from being shot by police. The accused fired at police and the girl was killed in the back fire.
        
        The defendant’s act need not be the sole cause or the main cause of the victim’s death. It is enough if it contributed significantly to that result
      - QCC s 298 provides
        Where a person does grievous bodily harm to another, and such other person has recourse to surgical or medical treatment, and death results either from injury or the treatment, the person is deemed to have killed that other person, although the immediate cause of death was the surgical or medical treatment, provided that the treatment was reasonably proper under the circumstances, and was applied in good faith.
        
        Three things must first be established
        R v Cook (1979) 2 A Crim R 151 at 155
        
        Second, the jury must not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the treatment which was administered was reasonably proper under the circumstances.
        
        Third, they must not be satisfied that the treatment was applied in good faith.
        
        First, it must be established that the immediate cause of death was the surgical or medical treatment.
      - natural consequences test of causation
        If the defendant’s act or omission is causally linked with the event or occurrence, it is always only one of the conditions which were jointly necessary to produce the event or occurrence.
        
        R v Hallett [1969] SASR 141
        
        Foresight by the accused of the possibility or probability of death or grievous bodily harm from his act, though very relevant to the question of malice aforethought, has nothing to do with the question of causation. The death of the deceased is the material event. The question to be asked is whether an act or series of acts (in exceptional cases an omission or series of omissions) consciously performed by the accused is or are so connected with the event that it or they must be regarded as having a sufficiently substantial casual effect which subsisted up to the happening of the event, without being spent or without being in the eyes of the law sufficiently interrupted by some other act or event.
- - - - A mere realisation by the defendant that their conduct might or
        could cause the victim’s death is not sufficient: R v Wilmot (No 2) [1985] 2 Qd R 413.
      - A remote possibility of endangering life
        is not sufficient: R v Gould and Barnes [1960] Qd R 283.
      - A real and not remote chance of endangering life is required, regardless of whether it is less or more than 50 per cent: Hind & Harwood v R (1995) 80 A Crim R 105 per Pincus J at 138.
- - - - In Queensland this can arise in the following three circumstances – they are not a complete defence as they do not lead to an acquittal – if successful they reduce the offence from murder to manslaughter:
        
        1) Partial defence of provocation: s 304;
        
        2) Diminished responsibility: s 304A;
        
        3) Killing in an abusive relationship, for example domestic violence: s 304B.