that question was answered by my crim teacher many times.. the gist of his answer is that, a reasonable jury, if persuaded by many sources of evidence, can only come to the only logical conclusion, that the accused intended to kill/inflict GBH on the victim.
-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
just a fun criminal law question (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter mr EaZy
- Start date
mr EaZy
Active Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2004
- Messages
- 1,727
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2004
Frigid said:
so for a take home exam, i just have to state why i think"." she intended it basedd on factual evidence right?
coz the facts show it was calculated murder
mr EaZy
Active Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2004
- Messages
- 1,727
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2004
watever happened to that other guy's post, the one who said taktak doesnt apply?
charlie_charlie
rawrrr
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2003
- Messages
- 264
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2004
hey mr eazy,
If you're doing Biz/Law @ uts, why are you doing crim? :S
and hows your court report going? im slowly going mad with the blinking cursor n the white white screen...and procrastination levels are going up....
If you're doing Biz/Law @ uts, why are you doing crim? :S
and hows your court report going? im slowly going mad with the blinking cursor n the white white screen...and procrastination levels are going up....
hiphophorray123
Banned
ive only done HSC law but would bob have broken the chain of causation by negligence.
Last edited:
MiuMiu
Somethin' special....
mr EaZy said:
I did touch on standard of care! I just cant remember anything about it
santaslayer
Active Member
The normal standard of care a fully accredited paramedic would I think.
The fully accreduited paramedic would be alongside the trainee, so he/she would be in a greater position of responsibility.
I didn't read the case..
The fully accreduited paramedic would be alongside the trainee, so he/she would be in a greater position of responsibility.
I didn't read the case..
Omnidragon
Devil
There's not a big issue with standard of care... and BWS is not even formal law in Australia... are all of you really doing crim or have done crim?
The standard of care exercised by the paramedic is of minimal importance in this question. His treatment needs to be 'palpably wrong' (R v Jordan), not just 'thoroughly bad' (R v Smith) to sever causation. Bear in mind that the court is going to be VERY RELUCTANT to acquit a killer just because the patient later received some bad treatment.
Even in Evans and Gardiner, the doctor's failure to find a fatal, fractured bone was not enough to sever the accused's causation because it was merely bad treatment. It's not as if he did anything wrong. In this case, all the paramedic did was fail to give him treatment based on his medical expertise. He 'didnt accelerate the victim's death', which appears to be a threshold we need to overcome to sever causation (Evans and Gardiner).
And bear in mind, failing to get treatment is merely a 'loss of opportunity' to live(Bingapore).
So based on all these factors, one would reasonably conclude that the accused's actions were still an 'operating and substantial cause' that 'subsisted' up to the death of the accused (R v Hallet).
On the question of intention, you don't need to have 'desired' that the victim would die or receive GBH as a consequence of your actions to establish intention. It is sufficient that there is 'virtual certainity' that the victim would die or receive GBH. So, for example, if I attach you to a electric wheel chair and press the button, I don't need to desire to kill you to establish intention. In fact, I could be indifferent to whether you die or not. But it is still sufficient to form intention because I had 'virtual certainty' you were going to die. (Woolin, Hancock & Shankland).
Finally, a note regarding provocation. Delay is seen as an important factor by the Privy Council in R v R. It wasn't by the High Court. But later on, one of the judges in High Court conceded that his earlier partake in the majority judgment was wrong. So I guess the only conclusion we can draw from this is that delay doesn't bar provocation. It is a consideration, but not conclusive.
The standard of care exercised by the paramedic is of minimal importance in this question. His treatment needs to be 'palpably wrong' (R v Jordan), not just 'thoroughly bad' (R v Smith) to sever causation. Bear in mind that the court is going to be VERY RELUCTANT to acquit a killer just because the patient later received some bad treatment.
Even in Evans and Gardiner, the doctor's failure to find a fatal, fractured bone was not enough to sever the accused's causation because it was merely bad treatment. It's not as if he did anything wrong. In this case, all the paramedic did was fail to give him treatment based on his medical expertise. He 'didnt accelerate the victim's death', which appears to be a threshold we need to overcome to sever causation (Evans and Gardiner).
And bear in mind, failing to get treatment is merely a 'loss of opportunity' to live(Bingapore).
So based on all these factors, one would reasonably conclude that the accused's actions were still an 'operating and substantial cause' that 'subsisted' up to the death of the accused (R v Hallet).
On the question of intention, you don't need to have 'desired' that the victim would die or receive GBH as a consequence of your actions to establish intention. It is sufficient that there is 'virtual certainity' that the victim would die or receive GBH. So, for example, if I attach you to a electric wheel chair and press the button, I don't need to desire to kill you to establish intention. In fact, I could be indifferent to whether you die or not. But it is still sufficient to form intention because I had 'virtual certainty' you were going to die. (Woolin, Hancock & Shankland).
Finally, a note regarding provocation. Delay is seen as an important factor by the Privy Council in R v R. It wasn't by the High Court. But later on, one of the judges in High Court conceded that his earlier partake in the majority judgment was wrong. So I guess the only conclusion we can draw from this is that delay doesn't bar provocation. It is a consideration, but not conclusive.
mr EaZy
Active Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2004
- Messages
- 1,727
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2004
great stuff omnidragon!!
and charlie: they made me do all biz subjects last sem
this sem they make us do LPH and LR
but these are not real law subjects - so i did crim law so that i can help decide if im the kind of guy suited to doing law
coz a lot of people hate LPH as its really boring (i dont think its boring- yet!)
LPH is not a law subject per se: its more on history, jurisprudence and processes of law hence Legal process and history
and charlie: they made me do all biz subjects last sem
this sem they make us do LPH and LR
but these are not real law subjects - so i did crim law so that i can help decide if im the kind of guy suited to doing law
coz a lot of people hate LPH as its really boring (i dont think its boring- yet!)
LPH is not a law subject per se: its more on history, jurisprudence and processes of law hence Legal process and history
charlie_charlie
rawrrr
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2003
- Messages
- 264
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2004
oh ok. so you're doing LPH+LR+Marketing+crim? or not doing marketing? i cant really imagine doing 26 cp...oh wait. i do. damn humanities.... bleh. but 26 cp with 20 cp of law subs....ugh.
MiuMiu
Somethin' special....
I believe I said that. I have done crim and did fucking fantastic at it....just can't remember it....Omnidragon said: