Homocide problem, any tips? (1 Viewer)

[JackBauer452]

The scenario: The defendant shoots at the victim who is running away from the defendant. The victim in the process of fleeing falls down a 3 metre hole. The defendant abandons the victim. The victim only sustains minor injuries from the actual fall, but in the process of trying to get up the hole, falls down and fractures his skull. If he had medical treatment within 2 hrs of the fracture, he would have been saved but did not and was found dead 3 days later.

Can someone please suggest to me what the substantial and operating cause of death is? I can't decide if its whether the fact that the defendant shoots the victim which causes him to run away and fall into the hole, or the defendant abandoning the victim or whether the victim climbing up from the hole.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

 

[melsc]

The scenario: The defendant shoots at the victim who is running away from the defendant. The victim in the process of fleeing falls down a 3 metre hole. The defendant abandons the victim. The victim only sustains minor injuries from the actual fall, but in the process of trying to get up the hole, falls down and fractures his skull. If he had medical treatment within 2 hrs of the fracture, he would have been saved but did not and was found dead 3 days later.

Can someone please suggest to me what the substantial and operating cause of death is? I can't decide if its whether the fact that the defendant shoots the victim which causes him to run away and fall into the hole, or the defendant abandoning the victim or whether the victim climbing up from the hole.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

I would see if there are any cases similar - problem questions are loosely based on cases more often than not. Also I would argue both and then come to a conclusion about which one is more likely because you are then showing the alternative.

 

[hfis]

I was at the stage of thinking "I don't recall Criminal Law B being so bad, I don't know why I didn't like it at the time."

Thank you very much for reminding me. Sadly I don't have an answer for you, but rather a reassurance that it will eventually end.

 

[circusmind]

I'd argue the merits of both if I were you.

The case you should look at for the first argument is Royall v the Queen, and you'll need to either distinguish it on the basis that in Royall the victim's fall was the cause of death, whereas here the cause was subsequent acts by the victim, or argue that it still applies.

Also check the obiter in Royall where one of the justices (McHugh J?) says it is no excuse if a defendent intends a situation to kill the victim, but the death occurs in a way unexpected by the defendent. You'd have to talk about the merits of that position, as it is merging the doctrines of causation and mens rea.

disclaimer:

i'm rambling and do not remember much of crim.

 

[Rachonium]

gee that guy's unlucky.. getting shot at then falling in a 3m hole. sorry i cant contribute. i just found it funny

 

[incentivation]

In Royall v R, Mason CJ at 21:

It seems to me that, in the context of causation, the principle is best formulated as follows: where the conduct of the accused induces in the victim a well-founded apprehension of physical harm such as to make it a natural consequence (or reasonable) that the victim would seek to escape and the victim is injured in the course of escaping, the injury is caused by the accused's conduct. Whether it is necessary for the prosecution to establish also that the mode of escape adopted is a natural consequence of the victim's apprehension for his or her safety does not arise here for the deceased had no means of escape other than jumping out of the window in the situation posited. The question could arise only in circumstances where the victim does something irrational or unexpected, in which event it might be more difficult to establish that the injury sustained was a consequence of the accused's act and not the product of the victim's voluntary act. In such a situation much may turn on the nature and extent of the well-founded apprehension of the victim; and it is to be expected that persons fearful for their own safety forced to react on the spur of the moment will not always make a sound or sensible judgment and may act irrationally.

Forseeability might also be an issue, to which Mason stated:

However, in my view, to invite the jury to consider foreseeability would be more likely, at least in the majority of cases, to confuse than to clarify the issue of causation. In many cases, for much the same reason, I see no point in linking that issue to the accused's state of mind. On the other hand, in some situations, the accused's state of mind will be relevant to that issue as, for example, where there is evidence that the accused intended that injury should result in the way in which it did and where, in the absence of evidence of intention, the facts would raise a doubt about causation.

I might be completely off track..

 

[melonkitten]

homocide.

have sex with a gay man.

 

[circusmind]

I might be completely off track..

God, the HCA didn't know what they were doing in that case so there's no hope for the rest of us...