Conviction for Liability in Murder Case

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