Criminal Law Case Study: Selena's Liability for Murder/Manslaughter

This case study examines a scenario involving Selena, who is potentially liable for the death of Ariana. The analysis delves into the legal elements of murder and manslaughter, as defined by the Crimes Act 1900. It explores actus reus (the act), mens rea (the mental state), and causation to determine Selena's criminal liability. The discussion covers the intention to kill, intention to inflict grievous bodily harm, reckless indifference to life, and the commission of a serious offense leading to death. It differentiates between murder and manslaughter, including voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, and assesses whether Selena's actions constitute any of these offenses. The case study also considers the elements of causation, voluntary acts, and the death of the victim, and it concludes by evaluating Selena's culpability based on the presented facts and legal principles, ultimately determining whether she can be held guilty for the death of Ariana.

RUNNING HEAD: CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1
CRIMINAL LAW
Introduction:
According to the provided case, Selena will be charged with the liability of murder and can also
be charged relating to the provisions of manslaughter under section 18 of the Crimes Act 1900.
There will be a responsibility of proving beyond the standard of reasonable doubt1. If the judge
wants to release Selena according to the case of murder, then she can be found guilty as it will be
open to them.
Discussion:
Section 18 of the Crimes Act 1900 defines manslaughter and murder. A murder is said to
be done when any person or an individual is found to be committing any act which can cause the
death of a person or an individual. It will be considered as murder if the committed act develops
human life recklessly different. There should be an intention to kill or to harm the body
grievously to some person or an individual. There should be a presence of attempt for the
commission of the crime where the accused will be punished upon the imprisonment of twenty-
five years or for life. All the punishable homicide is considered as the manslaughter. There
should be a presence of malicious intent, and if the accused do not have an excuse or a legal
cause should not fall in this provision or section. There is no defined forfeiture or punishment
should be given to a person or an individual who slaughters another individual by the process of
misfortune.
Section 18 of the Crime Act 2009 explains that there are four situations that can charge
an individual in a case of murder. The following actions should be present to prove any person
guilty for the case of murder:
1 Green v R (1971) 126 CLR 28

2
CRIMINAL LAW
When there is a presence of an intention to slaughter any individual:
This statement explains that it is necessary to be produced that the other person or an
individual have died due to the deliberate action or cause of failure of the action.
When there is an intention to inflict grievously body harm upon any other individual:
This statement explains that there should a deliberate cause of bodily harm that should be
grievous to the opposite party that can cause the death of the person. Grevious body harm leads
to serious harm that includes the serious and permanent disfigurement like internal damage of
organs or serious damage to bones.
There should be an act of reckless indifference to the life of an individual:
This statement explains that there should be an arisen situation where any individual or a
person should know about the omission or the action can result in the death of a person or an
individual.
While commission of a serious offence, the other individual should die:
Any person or an individual can be charged if they cause the death of an individual or a
person while the commission of another offence that imposes the max penalty of imprisonment
for 25 years. It can be illustrated with an example that if one person is killed during the time of
committing sexual assault of another person or an individual.
The main elements of committing murder are as follows:
 Actus Reus:
The term actus reus is considered to be common for manslaughter and murder.
The prosecution should develop that omission or the voluntary act of Selena caused
Ariana’s death.

3
CRIMINAL LAW
Causation:
The homicidal law demands the consequence that is explained as the death of the victim
that is caused by the intention of the accused that is stated as murder and manslaughter both are
identical. If the consequences of death are failed to be proved by the accused, they should easily
be acquitted for murder or manslaughter. They can be held criminally liable for attempting to kill
at the highest degree and aggravated, and assault should be done.
There are a different number of test that explains the causation theory that can be applied
in the given case study which may not fit2. The operating and the substantial cause test is a type
of test that will be most appropriate for the facts of these case. This type of test is required to
prove the prosecution that the act of Selena can be easily connected with Ariana’s death that is
regarded as the substantially sufficient effect that is considered as the causal where the death of
the Ariana is subsisted without being interrupted by other activities3. It has been observed that
the death of Ariana is related to the act of Selena. It Selena would have rushed behind Ariana she
could be easily saved from being died.
Voluntary act or omission:
The prosecution entitles that here is a commission of the voluntary act and the involuntariness
cannot be avoided4. As it was known to Selena that Ariana was panic and she was driving above
the normal speed limit which caused the accident that led to the death of Ariana. Selena could be
held liable for the commission of this act as it developed into a dangerous situation.
2 R v Faure [1999] VSCA 166 (24 September 1999),
3 Darkan v R [206] HCA 34, (2006) 227 CLR 373 (22 June 2006
4 Ryan v R [1967] HCA 2, (1967) 121 CLR 205 (3 March 1967

4
CRIMINAL LAW
Selena chased her car and made her panic voluntarily, which led to the accident of Ariana.
Selena could be held liable for her commission of an act which developed a dangerous situation
and then she never took any further steps to save5.
As Selena, while driving took a sharp bend and along with that, she was driving with an
exceeded speed limit of more than forty kilometres per hour. Because of Selena’s chasing
associated with tight bend speedily her car slid off and rolled down the hill. Due to the cause of
the accident Ariana got injured on her leg and arm which was broken and there was a problem in
breathing, thinking of taking help from Taylor as she was staying close to the accident site. She
had a fearful mind that Selena would have chased her. After she was taken to the hospital with
the help of Taylor, she never regained her consciousness, and after a few days, it has been
observed Ariana’s brain stopped working.
Death of Ariana:
Based on the above facts, it is well explained that Ariana is lawfully dead.
Mens Rea:
Intention for killing:
The act of doing murder is considered as a serious offence that needs a result to be
specific that is death. This should be proved by the prosecution; Selena’s purpose was to cause
the death of Ariana6. The principle to transfer the intention explains that if Selena can satisfy the
state of men's rea for killing Ariana the reason for killing other, the intention of killing is being
transferred to the victim who can be considered as the actual.
5 Hudd v R [2013] NSWCCA 57 (15 March 2013),
6 Stone and Dobinson [1977] QB 354

5
CRIMINAL LAW
In the first instance, Selena was chasing her, and there was no intention that can be
observed for killing Ariana. It was not known to Selena that on chasing Ariana, she would drive
over the speed limit that can risk her life and can cause serious injury leading to death. Therefore
there was no intention to kill Ariana as proved in the discussion.
Intention to inflict GBH:
The similar issue of developing an intention emerges from intent to kill. It is not fair that
chasing someone with a car and creating a disturbance during driving and fear creates an
intention to give grievous harm to the body due to the significance of sliding down the hills
without any protection can be considered as the death of the person.
Reckless indifference in the life of an individual:
Reckless indifference in the life of an individual is explained clearly in the common law. It has
been said that there should be a presence of knowledge that can cause the death of a person. The
difference between Selena’s act as that is being discussed in the mentioned facts that the
intention for killing so that it do not matter in this contention. It is not required by the
prosecution for proving that Selena knew very clearly that her action could cause death to
Ariana.
Manslaughter:
As Selena is not found to be guilty of murder, the term voluntary manslaughter can easily
be disregarded. The two types of manslaughter can be considered involuntary. Dangerous act and
unlawful manslaughter and another are said to be as manslaughter that is criminally negligent.

6
CRIMINAL LAW
Selena’s act was not unlawful, or it is considered as the smallest degree of unlawful to the degree
of seriousness that is required.
Manslaughter that is known to negligent criminally is well defined in the matter of
common law7. The prosecution must prove the standard of care exercised by Selena is negligible
involving a high risk of death, followed by her act.
From the above mentioned facts, it is clear that Selena was not liable, and she did not
carry any intention to kill Ariana. She chased her, which lead Ariana to meet with an accident,
causing the death of Ariana. Applying the principles of criminology it has been observed that
Selena neither had performed manslaughter nor she carried any intention to kill Ariana. Thus it
can well be said Selena cannot be held guilty for the task she had performed.
Reference:
Green v R (1971) 126 CLR 28
R v Faure [1999] VSCA 166 (24 September 1999),
Darkan v R [206] HCA 34, (2006) 227 CLR 373 (22 June 2006
Ryan v R [1967] HCA 2, (1967) 121 CLR 205 (3 March 1967
Hudd v R [2013] NSWCCA 57 (15 March 2013),
Stone and Dobinson [1977] QB 354
7 Lane v R [2013] NSWCCA 317 at [46]

7
CRIMINAL LAW

8
CRIMINAL LAW