Unlawful Killing 1. Identify parties: X v Y 2. Jurisdiction: Told/ assumes events happened in Queensland = Qld Law applies 3. Offence: It is unlawful to kill any person unless such killing is authorised or justified or excused by law s 291 4. Elements: a. Person i. ANY PERSON ii. S 292 -A child becomes are person capable of being killed when it has completely proceeded in a living state from the body of its moth, whether is has breather or not, and whether is has an independent circulation or not, and whether the navel-sting is severed or not iii. Is it an offence to kill a foetus? S 313 - makes it a crime to kill and unborn child including via and assault on a pregnant women iv. S 282 - provides some defence to this crime involving operations to save the mother's life. v. But to constitute homicide death must occur after the birth, though the act or omissions causing death may occur before birth: Castles; Martin (No. 2) b. Without authority, justification or excuse (unlawfulness) i. Authorised - subject to prior approval in the form og legislation or common law. Example - Police power and responsibilities Act 200 (qld) s 616(4) > R v Prow [1990] 1 Qd R 64 ii. Justification or excuse - where the act or omission causing death is not expressly authorised, but circumstances excuse the killer from criminal responsibility. Example: self defence, accident. iii. Note s 284 consent immaterial - prohibits euthanasia, cannot comply with competent person request. C. Kill i. KILLS": s 293 - any person who causes he death of another, directly or indirectly, by any means whatever, is deemed to have killed that other person. 2 sub -elements ii. Causes 1. Note - causation will be indirect where it is deemed to have occurred pursuant to the criminal negligence provisions. 2. The 'but for' test a. R v Smith- " 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." Found guilty b. R v Jordan - "The well-known medical experts gave evidence that in their opinion death had been caused, not by the stabbing, but by the introduction of Terramycin after the deceased had shown that he was intolerant to it and by intravenous introduction of abnormal quantities of liquid" Court had to quash conviction. c. Hallet - Man left guy on the beach after beating him. The tidal wave came in and he died. Appellant argues he didn't know the
wave would come up and kill him. Court held that the event was not so extraordinary. Tides come in all the time. He caused death. 3. The legal test of causation is that the act or omission must have substantially or significantly contributed to the relevant event. Royall v R. a. Crown argued that the victim was ether pushed out the window, was being attacked