Criminal Liability in a Murder Case under Australian Law
Verified
Added on 2023/06/03
|8
|1629
|120
AI Summary
The article discusses the criminal liability of Peter, Rachel, Stuart, and Louise in a murder case under Australian law. It explains the relevant sections of the Crimes Act 1958 and the elements of criminal offence. It also discusses the defences available under the law.
Contribute Materials
Your contribution can guide someone’s learning journey. Share your
documents today.
Criminal Law
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
Introduction Rachel was having an affair with their neighbour Stuart, who is a single father having a 16 year old daughter named Louise. Rachel felt guilty about the affair and told Stuart to finish it. Stuart felt sad and told her that, he was going to tell everything to her husband Peter, after which, Rachel went out enraged. Stuart called Rachel on her mobile in distress and discussed a deal with her that if she pay $2000, then he would not tell anything to Peter to which Rachel agreed and transferred the money instantly. However, she was not aware that Stuart already had sent graphic footage of both of them together to Peter through email. In the evening, when Peter saw the footage, he took a knife and ran towards the house of Stuart. Stuart’s daughter was outside her house when she saw Peter coming towards her; she quickly ran to the shed in the backyard of the house and grabbed the rifle of her father. As soon as Peter came to the front door of her house and Stuart opened the door, she came from the back and pulled the trigger at him and Peter died on the spot. The bullet bounced back and seriously injured Stuart’s arms as well. Issue Are Peter, Rachel, Stuart and Louise are all criminally liable and if yes, what are their criminal liabilities? Rule Under the Crimes Act 1958, the elements of criminal offence except those considered as absolute liability requires mental as well as physical elements which are referred to as MensreaandActusreasrespectively. In this context,Mensreainvolve certain types of mental conditions such as intention, recklessness and negligence. The intention is to get involved in a particular behaviour decisively. The recklessness is to get engaged in a particular kind of
behaviour without considering risks(Austlii, 2018).The negligence is to act in a careless manner without considering its impact upon others. TheActusReasmust be a voluntary physical act and it involves acts, omissions and permanent behaviour. The elements of an offence require applying objective and subjective tests. The objective tests consider the feelings, thoughts or experience of a reasonable person in that situation while subjective tests consider what actually is felt experienced or thought by the person concerned(Austlii, 2018). Children under a certain age are considered as incapable of taking mental or physical actions necessary to be considered as a crime. The children above the age of 14 years are supposed to be responsible for the actions taken by them. Section 3 of Crimes Act 1958 provides the provisions of punishment for murder, the definition of murder provided in the common law states that when an individual having sound memory and of the age capacity to take decision kills a reasonable person unlawfully and with malice intention and the death occurred between a year and a day(Austlii, 2018). In order to provemensreabehind a murder, malice intention either expressed or implied is required to be proved. There are various forms of malice aforethought which are intentional, reckless and constructive. In this context, intentional murder is known as express malice, wherein,mensreaandactusreamust co-exist. Reckless murder is to kill a person with intentional carelessness. In constructive murder, the legislation has to construct the relevant mental element. The amendments in the Crimes Act 1958 had introduced statutory defences to murder which are compulsion and sudden emergency and are considered as self-defence. Subdivision 1AA of the Crimes Act 1958 defines self-defence as a general criminal defence and not specific to homicide(Austlii, 2018).Section 322K of the Act states that a person cannot be held guilty
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
of an offence if the person acted in self-defence believing it to be essential for self-defence and is a reasonable response in that situation as perceived by them. Section 20 of the Act states that when a person makes a threat to kill a person with an intention to terrorize the other person is held guilty of a criminal offence(Austlii, 2018). Section 77A of the Act is related to the home invasion when an individual enters the home of other person having an offensive weapon with an intention to steal or commit offence is punishable under criminal law(Austlii, 2018). Section 87 of the Act considers a person guilty of blackmail, if he or she makes unjustified demand with threats with intent to gain for themselves or loss to others with reasonable grounds to make such demand. Section 322R of the Act holds that a person cannot be held guilty if the conduct carried out by him or she is in situation of sudden emergency(Austlii, 2018). Application Under Criminal law of Australia, Peter can be held liable under section 77A of the Act because he ran into the premises of Stuart with an intention to kill him having a kitchen knife in his hand. However, the reason behind his rage was the provocation that was given to him by the email of graphic footage sent to him by Stuart, it cannot be considered as a defence against the intention to murder. Rachel can be held criminally liable for murder because she was not there at the time of murder and had no information about the matter to be getting that worsened. Stuart asked her to give $2000 and she transferred believing that he will not tell anything to Peter as promised. However, she can be held liable under Section 20 of the Act because she made a threat to kill Stuart with an intention to terrorize him so that he would not disclose anything to her husband.
Stuart can be held criminally liable criminally under Section 87 of the Act because firstly, he blackmailed Rachel to transfer $2000 in his account, otherwise he would tell her husband about their affair. Secondly, he recorded footage with Rachel and sent it to Peter even after promising her not to disclose anything before her husband, which also comes under criminal intention(Austlii, 2018). Louis was a sixteen year old girl and she was supposed to be responsible for the actions taken by her. Under law, she will be considered as mature enough to act responsibly(ICLA, 2018). As soon as she saw Peter came running towards her with a knife in his hand, she frightened and brought rifle from the backyard. She shot Peter to defend her father because she believed that if she would not have pulled the trigger, Peter might have had killed her father. So, she cannot be held guilty under section 322R of the Act as she carried out the act in the situation of unexpected or extraordinary emergency(Victorinan Government, 2018).However, due to the bounce back of the bullet, her father also got injured severely, which shows that she was not intentionally targeting Peter but acted in defence to her father. Conclusion The overall matter involves Peter, Rachel, Louis as well as Stuart. Peter can be held criminally liable under Section 77A of the Act for home invasion with an intention to kill or harm Stuart. Rachel can be held liable under Section 20 of the Act for threatening to kill Stuart. Stuart can be held liable under Section 87 of the Act for blackmailing Rachel to give him $2000 otherwise he would disclose the information to her husband. Louis cannot be held liable criminally because she acted in defending her father and had no intention to kill Peter but, believed it to be correct under the circumstances of sudden or extraordinary emergency otherwise Peter would have killed her father.