Issues on Criminal Law 2022

Running head: CRIMINAL LAW
CRIMINAL LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

CRIMINAL LAW1
Issue
The primary issues in relation to the given scenario are as follows:-
 What may be the probable criminal accountability of Doug regarding Peter’s demise?
 What may be the probable criminal accountability of Nick regarding the permanent injury
suffered by Craig?
Rule
Section 23 of Crimes Act of 1900 shall be considered to be a significant case in relation
to the provided situation1. This particular section forwards the partial defense relating to
provocation. As per this section, an action is said to be performed as a response to extreme
provocation when the death of the deceased is caused by the action of accused in response to the
conduct or behavior of deceased, which affected the accused. It may be further added that the
conduct or behavior of deceased resulted in the loss of self-control of the accused. In this regard,
the case of Davis v R (1998) 100 A Crim R 5732 shall be considered to be a relevant case. In this
specific case, it was said that the partial defense relating to provocation shall encompass actions
of the accused performed instantly before, as well as erstwhile to murder.
Stingel v R [1990] HCA 613 must be regarded as an important case in relation to the
provided situation. In this case, it was stated that the murder was caused by the accused after
provocation from the deceased. It was held that the provocation was such that any reasonable
individual would lose is or her self-control. If the defense is able to prove or demonstrate in
relation to the charge for murder that provocation had been made, then the directions may be
1 Crimes Act, 1900.
2 Davis v R (1998) 100 A Crim R 573.
3 Stingel v R [1990] HCA 61.

CRIMINAL LAW2
provided to jury to lessen the offence or crime to manslaughter. Such ruling was followed in the
case of Singh v R [2012] NSWSC 6374.
Royall v R [1991] HCA 275 must be regarded as an important case in relation to the
provided scenario. In this case, it was said that during the assessment of the guilt relating to
murder, the intention regarding the exact manner of the occurrence of the death shall not be
relevant as long as the requirement of ‘actus reus’ and ‘mens rea’ is fulfilled. As per the Crimes
Act of the 1900, the necessary ‘actus reus’ in relation to murder is when any particular action or
the omission to perform any action has resulted in the death.
R v Crabbe [1985] HCA 226 shall be considered to be a relevant case in relation to the
provided scenario. In this particular case, it was sad that the ‘mens rea’ in relation to murder
involves an intention for killing. It also involves an intention to cause grievous and serious
bodily harm. It also involves the recklessness in relation to the human life, particularly where the
defendant was able to foresee that his or her actions may most probably result in death.
R v Mitchell [2007] 177 A Crim R 947 must be considered to be an important case in
relation to the provided scenario. In this case, it was stated that the nature regarding the injury
that has been suffered by the victim shall, to a substantial extent, determine and construe the
gravity and solemnity of the offence. However, it may be said that no principle or rule exists that
may necessitate that the nature regarding the injuries that may be sustained shall be considered to
be the most significant facet or essentially assess the objective gravity or seriousness regarding
4 Singh v R [2012] NSWSC 637.
5 Royall v R [1991] HCA 27.
6 R v Crabbe [1985] HCA 22.
7 R v Mitchell [2007] 177 A Crim R 94.