Conviction for Liability in Murder Case

This article discusses the basis for conviction or non-conviction in a murder case involving Jason, who is charged with the murder of Collin. It explores the relevant issues, applicable laws, and defense for the accused. The article also explains the difference between murder and manslaughter.

Hypothetical project Question

Why a conviction would or would not be available on each basis for
liability
Relevant issues:
Jason who served Australian army is charged with murder of Collin due to his act of robbery to
fulfill his need of intoxication with drugs because he is ice addict and cannot leave without
drugs. The reason behind the death of Collin found was heart failure brought on most likely by
hypothermia (due to long stay in cold room), which is known to disturb heart rhythms. Here, the
issue raised with proving whether to charge Jason with murder and convicted of punishable
homicide under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) in relation to Colin’s death or not. The facts which
favor Jason for not convicted him for punishable homicide are as follows:
1. Jason was unaware about coldness of room; also he was unknown to the fact that Collin
gets heart attacks. This proofs that Jason intention was not murder Collin.
2. The death cause was not immediate after the commencement; Collin died after 8 hours of
commencement of crime. Additional to this, Jason left front and rare doors unlocked so
that anyone known or relatives of both Collin and Sally could come and unlocked them
from cold room. This also supports unintentional murder by Jason.
Applicable law:
MURDER LAW:
Murder, as defined by s 18(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900, is made out where a voluntary act or
omission of the accused causes the death of the deceased and the act is committed with:
1. An intent to inflict grievous bodily harm, or
2. An intent to kill, or
3. Reckless indifference to human life, or
4. Committed by the accused or some accomplice with him or her in an attempt to commit, or
during or immediately after the commission of, an offence punishable by at least 25 years
imprisonment (constructive murder).

Section 18 does not apply to the condition of a person who commits suicide intentionally, or by
coincidence, or who commits a crime, or during or after committing a crime (referred to in
paragraph 4, above) or by giving credit to someone else a proof that it resulted in suicide.
A reckless connection with human life makes a spectacle with a glimpse of the appearance of
death from that spectacle. From time to time there may not be much of a difference between
making a show with the goal of killing (or doing really horrible damage) and making a show
admitting that it would likely fall. : Campbell v R a [311].
The Crown must have shown reasonable uncertainty in the past, by the time [he / she] made the
deliberate presentation that resulted in [the deceased's] death, [the accused] was intended to kill
the deceased, or to mourn [his ] sincere sorrow, or the spectacle that caused the end was
interrupted by a foolish lack of interest in human life. This is the second of the essential elements
of suicide. It is a recurring theme as a psychological part of a suicide crime that requires the
Crown to show insecurity. These three scenes are isolated and unique. The Crown must show
reasonable uncertainty in the past as to whether [the accused] had any of them at the time [he /
she] made the presentation causing a decline. According to the psychological part of the murder
crime, what the Crown has to prove is that it is the crime scene at the time of the show that is
causing the decline.
Intention:
For the murder offense, the Crown must have exhibited a sensitive insecurity which, at the time
[he / she] made the conscious demonstration that caused the death of the deceased, [the accused]
made the demonstration that with the aim of killing or aiming to inflict necessarily horrible
injuries on [the deceased]. In fact, serious harm is a very serious crime. This type of injury does
not have to be permanent or even dangerous.
Intent and intention are very familiar words. In the legal environment in which we think about
them, they give the usual sense. A person's aim may be taken or terminated by the conditions
under which the conversion took place and by the accuser’s direction earlier, at the time or after
the person made the special presentation caused the deceased to leave. . At times, a person’s
performances can provide the strongest evidence of the goal at that point. When a particular
product is an unstable and unavoidable result of a person’s presentation, and the individual is

making that presentation, you can easily assume that that person has made that presentation with
the aim of achieving that particular result.
Reckless indifference
The third state of mind, which the Crown is responsible for depicting the murder, is mercilessly
described as human life. On the off chance that, at the time [the accused] did not present the
presentation that caused [the deceased], he was making it known or understood that the
presentation would be this causes the [deceased] still [the accused] you keep giving that
presentation without thinking too much about that result, at which time [the accused] would have
him blame for the murder.
At the heart of this psychological state is the fact that [the accused] should have expected the
decline, or possible outcome, of what was supposed to be a plausible outcome. ] does. If [the
accused] went to that accolade, but chose to go ahead and present the show without much regard
for the likelihood of death, and in case the truth was told accordingly, on stage that [is murder.
The boss of a person making a presentation that the person knows or intends to pass, for the
reasons underlying criminal law, is honored to be equally respected. penitential to an individual
who makes a presentation with the specific aim of causing a decline.
For this basis of murder, the serious attention [of the prosecutor] to the probability of death
should be accompanied by reasonable uncertainty. It is not enough that he / she simply accepted
that his / her leadership could lead to serious harm or that [the accused] simply believed there
was a possibility of death. Nothing not exactly a full acknowledgment with respect to [the
accused] that passing was a plausible outcome or the reasonable aftereffect of [his/her] conducts
is adequate to build up homicide along these lines.
Constructive murder
There is another alternative method where the Crown claims that [the accused] is responsible for
murder. Under this alternative, the Crown does not have to set a specific target for damage. It is
not the same as previous attempts by the Crown to argue that the prosecutor is responsible for
murder. A suicide offense may be displayed where the presentation of the culprit who caused the
death of the deceased was made by attempting to commit an actual offense, either during or after
the commission. A real crime is a crime that deserves a life sentence or 25 years.

The offense of murder may also be committed where the presentation of the guilty person who
caused the passage to the deceased was made in an attempt to commit an offense, during or after
an attempt by the accused, or an accessory act commit, a crime that is actually convicted such as
I was just representing you]. For this case the Crown states that the actual offense committed is
one of [a brief representation of the offense].
MANSLAUGHTER LAW
Manslaughter is a common law legal term for homicide considered by law as less culpable than
murder. Testimony between murders and murders from time to time states that it was first
committed by former Athenian lawgiver Draco in the 7th century BC.
Types:
1. Voluntary
In voluntary manslaughter, the perpetrator intended to actually execute or injure the perpetrator,
but acted "on the spot" under conditions that could be confused by a reasonable person seriously
or mentally. Defender models could include killing a home switch without being placed in a last-
chance situation. There are situations of relief that reduce the sense of guilt, for example, when
the lawyer kills only with the intent to cause serious conduct. Deliberate homicide in some local
areas is a lesser crime than murder. The usual mitigating factor was motivation; however, others
were introduced in different departments.
2. Involuntary
Involuntary manslaughter is the murder of someone without a plan to do so, both in
communication and in praise. He is identified by intentional homicide by showing a visit. It is
usually divided into two types, useful homicide and reckless criminal homicide, two of which
involve criminal duty.
DEFENSE FOR INTOXICATED
Some recompense is made in Australian criminal law for the impact of inebriation on an
individual blamed for perpetrating a wrongdoing. While not a safeguard in itself, inebriation may
by implication help a protection by giving the premise to a sensible uncertainty that a denounced

individual had the essential mental component (for example aim) to perpetrate the wrongdoing of
which they are charged. Nonetheless – and potentially demonstrative of basic network esteems
and perspectives – its accessibility is restricted, and it is even open to the arraignment to utilize
inebriation to demonstrate a denounced individual's blame.
In most Australian locales, a denounced can't depend on proof of self-actuated inebriation to
raise a sensible uncertainty that she or he had the fundamental aim to perpetrate the actual
demonstration of a wrongdoing of "essential plan" –, for example, homicide, attack, and
unlawfully causing heinous substantial mischief. Area 428D of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), for
instance, gives that self-incited inebriation at the pertinent time "can't be considered" in deciding
if a denounced had the imperative mental component "for an offense other than an offense of
explicit goal". Inebriation that was not self-instigated might be considered however.
Once more, a denounced might have the option to depend on proof of inebriation, regardless of
whether self-instigated, to raise a sensible uncertainty concerning a particular expectation to
accomplish a specific result needed by a "particular purpose" offense. Wrongdoings of alleged
explicit plan are violations dedicated for a specific reason, eg murder and injuring with aim to
cause substantial mischief, instead of having no specific reason other than doing a specific actual
act ("essential expectation").
This seemingly conflicting nature of inebriation in the guard setting recommends it isn't obvious
whether a charged individual should be encouraged to seek after it as a line of protection. This is
particularly so when it is viewed as that the arraignment may utilize proof of inebriation to
induce the essential criminal aim with respect to a blamed. Being a "known disinhibitor",
inebriation might be utilized by the arraignment to show that an individual intentionally
attempted to eliminate her or his ability for restraint to have the option to carry out a
wrongdoing.
A further thought for a blamed would be that proof for self-actuated inebriation may bring about
a more noteworthy punishment; however on the other hand, it might likewise be utilized in
moderation if the denounced was inebriated in conditions past her or his control. The NSW
Government has reported that it will eliminate self-actuated inebriation as a moderating element
in the assurance of punishments.

Conclusion
Based on the above case analyses and application of law in given case, it can be concluded that
Jason is not guilty for murder because his intention was not to kill Collin but robbery the cash
from meat house. In this case, Jason will not be considered intoxicated because at the time of
incidence he has sound mind and know very well what he is doing. But at the same time it cannot
be ignore that he was suffering from disorder of not having drugs and was shivering at the spot.
This shows he was disturbed and forces to do such a crime. Hence, Jason is not subject to get
punishment for 25 years because he is not found guilty for murder but get punishment for
attempting involuntary manslaughter.

References
Barratt, A.L., McGeechan, K., Black, K.I., Hamblin, J. and de Costa, C., 2019. Knowledge of
current abortion law and views on abortion law reform: a community survey of NSW
residents. Australian and New Zealand journal of public health, 43(1), pp.88-93.
Peiros, K. and Smyth, C., 2018. Elder abuse-It's criminal!. Taxation in Australia, 53(4), p.215.
Ranieri, S., 2017. IL v The Queen: Felony murder, self-killing, and joint criminal enterprise:
More questions than answers?. Bulletin (Law Society of South Australia), 39(10), p.18.
Hatzistergos, J., 2016. Bail Amendment Act 2015 (NSW) to commence. Judicial Officers
Bulletin, 28(10), p.95.
Marsic, N., 2018. Criminal law: An'unacceptable risk'-post sentence detention under the new
terrorism ('high risk offenders') act. LSJ: Law Society of NSW Journal, (44), p.86.
Van der Veen, A., 2017. Criminal law: Examining liability for felony murder through joint
criminal enterprise. LSJ: Law Society of NSW Journal, (38), p.88.
Hulme, R.A., 2020. Significant developments in the criminal law in 2019. Judicial Officers
Bulletin, 32(1), p.1.
Nancarrow, H., Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
Woods, G.D., 2002. A History of Criminal Law in New South Wales: The Colonial Period, 1788-
1900 (No. 17). Federation Press.