Criminal Law: Analysis of Criminal Offences in the Snow Case

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of a criminal law case involving various offences. The case revolves around Snow, a contract killer, and his involvement in murder, conspiracy, burglary, and criminal trespass. The report delves into the elements of each crime, including actus reus and mens rea, and examines relevant sections of the Crimes Act 1958. It discusses the potential criminal liabilities of Snow, differentiating between murder and manslaughter based on the intent and circumstances of the crime. The analysis references key case laws, such as R v Mohan and Haughton v Smith, to support legal arguments. Furthermore, it distinguishes between burglary and criminal trespass, clarifying the specific charges applicable to Snow's actions. The report concludes by highlighting the application of the doctrine of common purpose in this case, providing a clear understanding of the legal intricacies involved.

Running head: CRIMINAL LAW
CRIMINAL LAW
Name of the student
Name of the university
Author note

1CRIMINAL LAW
The present subject matter of the case is based on various criminal offences including
criminal intention, conspiracy, incitement, burglary and murder. According to the main facts
of the case, it has been observed that certain criminal activities have been occurred in this
case. The main accused of the case i.e. Snow is a contract killer who gets a contract to kill
one of the prime accused of a narcotic case. However, after killing that person, Snow was in
the ground and took shelter in the house of Khaleesi. When police arrested him, he had made
certain attempts to counter the police. Therefore, apart from the murder, he had done certain
other offences. Before entered into the home of the prime accused, Snow had commenced
burglary in the victim’s house. He had an intention to kill the victim and therefore, he can be
accused of committing conspiracy. Afterward, he had certain criminal liabilities for
committing murder of both the victim and his wife.
The term murder has been defined under section 3 of the Crimes Act 1958. According
to this section, when act of an individual caused the death of the other, it will be fall under the
offence of murder. In case of murder, certain serious bodily harm should be inflicted on the
victim1. However, according to section 6B of the Crimes Act 1958, if the jurist could observe
that the offence could be fall under the category of manslaughter, they may give such
direction. Such principle has been followed in Singh v R2. Further, it has been observed in R
v Johnson3, if before committing the murder, the offender was provoked by the victim and
killing has been done due to certain heated discussion or acts, court can accept the plea of
guilty under manslaughter. Similar concept has been taken in the recent case of R v Won4. In
the present case, it has been observed that Snow had an intention to murder the victim and not
his wife. He had to kill her because of the circumstantial adversity. Therefore, he can be tried
under the offence of manslaughter in this case.
1 CRIMES ACT 1958 (Cth) s 3.
2 Singh v R [2012] NSWSC 637
3 R v Johnson [2003] NSWCCA 129
4 R v Won [2012] NSWSC 855

2CRIMINAL LAW
Considering the case law, it can be stated that Snow has an intention to murder the
victim of this case and he was appointed for that. Therefore, it can be stated that Snow has an
intention to commit the crime. According to the common principle of criminal law, intention
is one of the main clauses of constitution of crime and it is based on the principle of mens rea.
It has been stated in R v Mohan5, criminal intention denotes to make certain decisions to
commit prohibited action. Further, certain conspiracy has been taken into place before kill the
victim and therefore, Snow has certain criminal liability for criminal conspiracy and he could
be tried under section 321 of the Crimes Act 1958. Principle on criminal conspiracy has also
been observed in the case of Haughton v Smith6. According to this case, if a person has
certain intention to commit a crime, he tried to commit the crime, and the nature of the crime
is not merely preparatory, it will fall under the offence related to criminal conspiracy.
Further, it has been observed from the case that before commit the murder of the
victim and his wife, Snow had trespassed the house of the victim. In this case, he can be held
liable for committing criminal trespass. However, he could not be held liable for the offence
related to the burglary. According to section 76 of the Crimes Act 1958, burglary takes place
when the offender has the mentality to rob the house and steal any valuable security from that
house7. However, in this case, Snow has done no such things. Rather, he can be charged
under criminal trespass that has been engraved under Crimes Act 1958. According to the
section, if any person enters into the house of others with an intention to assault him, he will
be held liable under this offence. In this case, Snow had entered into the house of the victim
with an intention to murder him and therefore, his acts have attracted the provisions of this
offence. Further, it has been stated under section 76 of the Act that reckless acts of the
offender in case of trespass will also required to be taken into consideration.
5 R v Mohan [1994] 2 SCR 9
6 Haughton v Smith (1975) AC 476
7 CRIMES ACT 1958 (Cth) s76.

3CRIMINAL LAW
Therefore, it can be stated that elements of the crime such as actus reus and mens rea
have been observed. Further, the possible criminal liabilities of Snow have also been outlined
in this case. However, the case of McAuliffe & McAuliffe v The Queen8 will not apply to the
case, as in this case (McAuliffe), the offender has an intention to inflict bodily injury to the
victim. They do not have an intention to cause him death. However, in this case, Snow has an
intention to murder the victim. However, the doctrine of common purpose can be applied
here.
8 McAuliffe & McAuliffe v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 108

4CRIMINAL LAW
Reference:
Crimes Act 1958 (Cth)
Haughton v Smith (1975) AC 476
McAuliffe & McAuliffe v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 108
R v Johnson [2003] NSWCCA 129
R v Mohan [1994] 2 SCR 9
R v Won [2012] NSWSC 855
Singh v R [2012] NSWSC 637