LAWS1206 Lecture Notes - Lecture 7: De Minimis, Truck Driver, Transferred Intent
Week 4 Wednesday
Wednesday, 15 March 2017
16:05
Overview
Actus Reus for murder under s 18(1)(a)
(1) Human being/living person (dealt with in taped lecture)
(2) Causation (See Royall v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 378)
Reminder re concurrence/coincidence of AR and MR (Meyers v R (1997)
147 ALR 440,Thabo Meli [1954] 1 All ER 373 (Week 2 Cases) and Fagan v
Commissioner of Metropolitan Police [1989] 1 QB 439 (Week 2 Cases))
Mens Rea for murder:
At common law (Crabbe (1985) 156 CLR 464)
Under s 18(1)(a):
Intention to kill
Intention to cause gbh
Reckless indifference to human life (see Royall)
Constructive Murder
Actus Reus Elements
What tests are applied to determine whether the accused caused the death of
the victim?
Leading case : Royall v the Queen - to reach a clear statement for causation,
there were no consensus for the tests,
Tests emerging from that cases are: test for causation
1. Natural consequence tests
2. Reasonable foreseeability tests
3. Operating and substantial cause test
1. Looked historically: development of causation at criminal law
Royall v the Queen
2. Judgement indicate that a different approach is required depending on the
complexity of the causation issue involved:
3. Simple cases? (Campbell v The Queen [1981] WAR 286): no other events
involved, i.e shoot, then death
4. Somewhat more complex cases (eg where there is more than one cause of
death)? Operating and substantial cause test (NB B & McS call this the
“substantial cause test”) : didn't die straightaway, improper medical attention, other
factors involved, such as given wrong blood type, when there is more than one cause for
death
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
5. Where there is a novus actus interveniens argued?:extra conduct by the
victim is argued to have broken the chain of causation
Starting point:
6. Operating and substantial cause test:
Supplemented by: whether natural consequence or reasonably foreseeable, if
eitherr, then did not break the chain of causation
7. Natural consequence test
8. Reasonable foreseeability test
Facts:
9. Kym William Royall was convicted of the murder of his girlfriend Kelly
Louise Healey and sentenced to life without parole.
10. Prosecution at trial put forward three theories as to how the victim fell from a
bathroom window
Royall pushed her out of the window: simple case
She fell while trying to avoid his attack: accidentally fell in trying to
avoid
She jumped out the window to escape him: saw the ash tray coming,
she jumped out of the window to escape
11. One of grounds of appeal to HC was whether the jury had been adequately
directed re causation.
12. It was accepted he had caused the death
13. Whether jury had been given adequate information for the tests of
causation to apply
Causation
Development of the law on causation
Operating and substantial cause test:
14. R v Smith [1959] 2 QB 35
Fight between 2 men, the accused inflicted two wounds, the one in the
back pierced the lung, victim reached the medical centre, when he was finally
treated, given oxygen etc, victim died from wrong medical treatment, if had blood
transfusion would have 75% of surviving
The medical treatment was thoroughly bad, the facilities etc,
Whether the accuused had caused the death
Conviction upheld :
“[i]f at the time of death the original wound is still an operating cause and a
substantial cause, then the death can properly be said to be the result of the
wound, albeit that some other cause of death is also operating. Only if it can
be said that the original wounding is merely the setting in which another
cause operates can it be said that the death does not result from the wound.
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Putting it another way, only if the second cause is so overwhelming as to make
the original wound merely part of the history can it be said that the death
does not flow from the wound.”
2. R v Blaue [1975] 1 WLR 1411 : attacked victim with a knife, arrival in
hospital, victim needed an operation, needed a blood transfusion, refused to have it on
religious grounds, the victim could have survived
Whether the accused's own conduct broke the chain of causation
between the stabbing and the death?
R v Smith applied
Whether the original stabbing still at the time of the victim's death,
operating as a substantial cause
Find the victim as you find them
What caused the death?: the stabbing was an operating and substantial
cause of death
“The physical cause of death in this case was the bleeding into the pleural cavity
arising from the penetration of the lung. This had not been brought about by any
decision made by the deceased girl but by the stab wound.”
This in our judgment means the whole man [or woman], not just the physical man.
It does not lie in the mouth of the assailant to say that his victim’s religious beliefs
which inhibited him from accepting certain kinds of treatment were unreasonable.
The question for decision is what caused her death. The answer is the stab wound.
The fact that the victim refused to stop this end coming about did not break the
causal connection between the act and the death.”
2. R v Evans and Gardiner (No 2) [1976] VR 523
Two men, both prisoners, fight with a third prisoners
Held responsible for a stabbed wound
Victim received prompt medical treatment
The wound healed
11 months later, the victim developed a secondary condition, common
complication arising from the wound, even if diagnosed can be rectified
immediately
The doctors failed to diagnose
Victim died
Convicted of manslaughter
Then appealed
“The failure of the medical practitioners to diagnose correctly the victim’s
condition, however inept and unskilful, was not the cause of death and the real
question for the jury was whether the blockage was due to the stabbing”
1. No matter how negligent medical treatments were, it was not sufficient to
break the chain of causation
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Actus reus for murder under s 18(1)(a) (1) human being/living person (dealt with in taped lecture) (2) causation (see royall v the queen (1991) 172 clr 378) Reminder re concurrence/coincidence of ar and mr (meyers v r (1997) 147 alr 440,thabo meli [1954] 1 all er 373 (week 2 cases) and fagan v. Commissioner of metropolitan police [1989] 1 qb 439 (week 2 cases)) At common law (crabbe (1985) 156 clr 464) Reckless indifference to human life (see royall) Leading case : royall v the queen - to reach a clear statement for causation, there were no consensus for the tests, Tests emerging from that cases are: test for causation: natural consequence tests, reasonable foreseeability tests, operating and substantial cause test. Looked historically: development of causation at criminal law. Judgement indicate that a different approach is required depending on the. Simple cases? (campbell v the queen [1981] war 286): no other events.
