UNE LAW162 Criminal Law Assignment: Tri 1 2020 - Case Analysis

This assignment analyzes a criminal law scenario involving Doug, Nick, Peter, and Craig. The analysis centers on the potential criminal liabilities of Doug concerning Peter's death and Nick regarding Craig's permanent injury. The solution considers the Crimes Act of 1900, particularly section 23 on provocation, and relevant case law such as Davis v R, Stingel v R, Royall v R, and R v Crabbe, to determine 'actus reus' and 'mens rea'. The application section evaluates Doug's actions in light of provocation and the potential reduction of a murder charge to manslaughter. It also assesses Nick's liability, considering the 'act of God' defense in relation to Craig's paralysis caused by an earthquake during surgery. The conclusion suggests that Doug's accountability may be reduced to manslaughter and Nick's responsibility is limited to the initial bodily harm to Craig. The document also includes a bibliography of cited cases and legislation.

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

1CRIMINAL LAW
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.

2CRIMINAL LAW
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.

3CRIMINAL LAW
the offence. In common terms, the more sever is the injury, the more solemn and grave would be
the offence. Such ruling was also forwarded in the case of Waterfall v R [2019] NSWCCA 2818.
The case of R v Bloomfield (1998) 44 NSWLR 7349 shall be considered to be a
significant case in connection to the provided scenario. In this case, it was forwarded that the
degree or extent of the violence that is utilized or the fierceness in relation to the attack shall be
regarded as a substantial consideration. This factor shall be considered even when the
consequences in relation to the attack committed upon the victim are nominal or insignificant.
The ruling of this case was also followed in later cases such as R v Zhang [2004] NSWCCA
35810 and R v Kirkland [2005] NSWCCA 13011.
The intention of the offender while inflicting harm shall also be counted as a vital
consideration. In this regard, the case of R v Williams (unrep, 30/5/94, NSWCCA)12 shall be
regarded as an important case. In this particular case, it was held that the offence was objectively
grave and serious because the victim had been punched by the offender in a calculated and cold
manner.
In McIntyre v R (2009) 198 A Crim R 54913, it was said that instances, relating to injuries
that may have the capacity to cause actual bodily harm, may encompass bruises and scratches.
Although, in the case of Li v R [2005] NSWCCA 44214, it was also said that actual bodily harm
shall also be caused in a circumstance where any particular victim may have been injured in
8 Waterfall v R [2019] NSWCCA 281.
9 R v Bloomfield (1998) 44 NSWLR 734.
10 R v Zhang [2004] NSWCCA 358.
11 R v Kirkland [2005] NSWCCA 130.
12 R v Williams (unrep, 30/5/94, NSWCCA).
13 McIntyre v R (2009) 198 A Crim R 549.
14 Li v R [2005] NSWCCA 442.

4CRIMINAL LAW
serious psychological manner, going outside the domain of meager fleeting emotions, states of
mind and feelings.
In the case of Nichols v Marsland (1876) 2 ExD 115, it was said that the defendant shall
not be held to be accountable because the extremely heavy rainstorm shall be considered to be an
‘act of God’ that was impossible to have been anticipated by the defendant.
Application
In the given scenario, initially, Doug was attacked by an intoxicated Peter outside the bar.
Peter held a knife to Doug’s throat due to which the neck skin of Doug was cut. Doug suffered
mental distress because of such encounter between him and Peter. During the rugby game Doug
charged at Peter by shouting certain threatening statements towards Peter. Although, prior to
such conduct of Doug, he was provoked by threatening and mocking conduct by Peter. The
charge of Doug at Peter killed Peter instantly, as Peter already had previous injuries. When the
game was halted, during the commotion, Nick punched Craig. During that time, Craig did not
allow himself to be taken to hospital. However, afterwards he was unable to move at all. After
taking Craig to the hospital it was found that surgery must be done on Craig. While doing the
surgery, an earthquake occurred and the scalpel of the surgeon slipped, causing permanent
paralysis to Craig.
Applying section 23 as provided in the Crimes Act enforced in the year 190016, it may be
said that 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
15 Nichols v Marsland (1876) 2 ExD 1.
16 Crimes Act, 1900.

5CRIMINAL LAW
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 57317 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. Therefore, it may be said that in the
given scenario, Doug had been provoked by Peter, which resulted in the loosing of self-control
by Doug.
Applying Stingel v R [1990] HCA 6118, it may be said that that the provocation by Peter
towards Doug was such that any reasonable individual would lose is or her self-control. If Doug
is able to prove or demonstrate in relation to the charge for murder that provocation had been
made, then the directions may be provided to jury to lessen the offence or crime to manslaughter.
Such ruling was followed in the case of Singh v R [2012] NSWSC 63719.
Applying Royall v R [1991] HCA 2720, it may be 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 2221 shall be applied in relation to the provided scenario. It must
be settled that whether Doug had any kind of ‘mens rea’ in connection to the death of Peter. If he
had ‘mens rea’ then Doug should be accountable regarding death of Peter.
17 Davis v R (1998) 100 A Crim R 573.
18 Stingel v R [1990] HCA 61.
19 Singh v R [2012] NSWSC 637.
20 Royall v R [1991] HCA 27.
21 R v Crabbe [1985] HCA 22.

6CRIMINAL LAW
Applying R v Mitchell [2007] 177 A Crim R 9422, it may be said that the nature regarding
the injury that has been suffered by Craig shall, to a substantial extent, determine and construe
the gravity and solemnity of the offence. It may be said that the more sever is the injury, the
more solemn and grave would be the offence. Such ruling was also forwarded in the case of
Waterfall v R [2019] NSWCCA 28123.
Applying R v Bloomfield (1998) 44 NSWLR 73424 in the given scenario, it may be said
that the degree or extent of the violence that is utilized or the fierceness in relation to the attack
shall be regarded as a substantial consideration. This factor shall be considered even when the
consequences in relation to the attack committed upon the victim are nominal or insignificant.
Therefore, in the given scenario, the degree or extent of the violence that has been utilized by
Doug or Nick, or the fierceness in relation to their attack must be regarded as a substantial
consideration.
R v Williams (unrep, 30/5/94, NSWCCA)25 shall be regarded as an important case. In this
particular case, it was held that the offence was objectively grave and serious because the victim
had been punched by the offender in a calculated and cold manner. Therefore, in the given
scenario, when Nick punched Craig, the intent of Nick must be considered, that is, whether his
punch was in a calculated and cold manner.
Applying McIntyre v R (2009) 198 A Crim R 54926, it may be said that instances, relating
to injuries that may have the capacity to cause actual bodily harm, may encompass bruises and
scratches. Although, applying the case of Li v R [2005] NSWCCA 44227, it may also be said that
22 R v Mitchell [2007] 177 A Crim R 94.
23 Waterfall v R [2019] NSWCCA 281.
24 R v Bloomfield (1998) 44 NSWLR 734.
25 R v Williams (unrep, 30/5/94, NSWCCA).
26 McIntyre v R (2009) 198 A Crim R 549.
27 Li v R [2005] NSWCCA 442.

7CRIMINAL LAW
actual bodily harm shall also be caused in a circumstance where any particular victim may have
been injured in serious psychological manner, going outside the domain of meager fleeting
emotions, states of mind and feelings. Therefore, in the given scenario, Doug suffered bodily
harm in both the aforementioned senses.
Applying Nichols v Marsland (1876) 2 ExD 128, it may be said that Nick shall not be held
to be accountable regarding the permanent paralysis of Craig because it occurred due to an ‘act
of God’, that is, earthquake.
Conclusion
To conclude, it may be said that:-
 The probable criminal accountability of Doug regarding Peter’s demise may be reduced
from murder to manslaughter.
 The probable criminal accountability of Nick would be regarding the bodily injury caused
to Craig but not regarding the permanent injury suffered by Craig, which was due to an
‘act of god’.
28 Nichols v Marsland (1876) 2 ExD 1.

8CRIMINAL LAW
Bibliography
Crimes Act, 1900.
Davis v R (1998) 100 A Crim R 573.
Li v R [2005] NSWCCA 442.
McIntyre v R (2009) 198 A Crim R 549.
Nichols v Marsland (1876) 2 ExD 1.
R v Crabbe [1985] HCA 22.
R v Bloomfield (1998) 44 NSWLR 734.
R v Kirkland [2005] NSWCCA 130.
R v Mitchell [2007] 177 A Crim R 94.
R v Williams (unrep, 30/5/94, NSWCCA).
R v Zhang [2004] NSWCCA 358.
Royall v R [1991] HCA 27.
Singh v R [2012] NSWSC 637.
Stingel v R [1990] HCA 61.
Waterfall v R [2019] NSWCCA 281.