4977947
Beschreibung
Karteikarten von James Forgie, aktualisiert more than 1 year ago
|
Erstellt von James Forgie
vor mehr als 8 Jahre
|
|
| Frage | Antworten |
| MURRAY WRIGHT LTD | Because the killing must be done by a human being, an organisation (such as a hospital or food company) cannot be convicted as a principal offender. |
| R v TOMARS (threats, fear of violence & deception S160(2)(d)) | Formulates the issues in following way: 1) Was the deceased threatened by, in fear of or deceived by the defendant? 2) If they were, did such threats, fear or deception cause the deceased to do the act that caused their death? 3) Was the act a natural consequence of the actions of the defendant, in the sense that reasonable & responsible people in the defendant's position at the time could reasonably have foreseen the consequences? 4) Did these foreseeable actions of the victim contribute in a significant way to his death? |
| R v MYATT | Before a breach of any Act, regulation or bylaw would be an unlawful act under S160 for the purposes of culpable homicide, it must be an act likely to do harm to the deceased or to some class of persons of whom he was one. |
| R v HORRY | Death should be provable by such circumstances as render it morally certain and leave no ground for reasonable doubt -that the circumstantial evidence should be so cogent and compelling as to convince a jury that upon no rational hypothesis other than murder can the facts be accounted for. |
| R v MURPHY (intent re attempt) | When proving an intent to commit an offence it must be shown that the accused's intention was to commit the substantive offence. For example, in a case of attempted murder it is necessary for the Crown to establish an actual intent to kill. |
| R v HARPUR (attempts) | The court may have regard to the conduct viewed cumulatively up to the point when the conduct in question stops. The defendants conduct may be considered in its entirety. Considering how much remains to be done is always relevant, though not determinative. |
| R v MANE (accessory to murder) | For a person to be an accessory the offence must be complete at the time of the criminal involvement. One cannot be convicted of being an accessory after the fact of murder when the actus reus of the alleged criminal conduct was wholly completed before the offence of homicide was completed. |
| R v BLAUE | Those who use violence must take their victims as they find them. |
Möchten Sie mit GoConqr kostenlos Ihre eigenen Karteikarten erstellen? Mehr erfahren.