Royall V R-teacher’s copy- DO NOT COPY WORD TO WORD! JUST AN IDEA OF WHAT TO TALK ABOUT…  

Murder:

Act by D, caused death of V, and D possessed relevant mens rea

Issue:

1. A submits that the trial judge and CCA failed to adequately define the ‘act’ alleged to have caused death (276); that’s important because may be different intents attached to different acts as in Ryan

2. Applicant says that the trial judge’s direction on causation was incorrect

3. Applicant says trial judge’s direction on causation regarding ‘escape’ was incorrect

Rule/Law:

1. Correct rule re: identifying ‘act’ is… (*end of decision)

2. Correct rule for causation : ‘it is enough if juries [are] told that the question of cause for them to decide is not a philosophical or a scientific question, but a question to be determined by them applying their common sense to the facts as they find them’ (Mason CJ)(277); ‘common sense test’ (McHugh, J); different tests apply to different situations; identifies four tests (McHugh, middle page)

3. Correct rule regarding escape is this (279 middle) ‘it seems to me that… ‘natural consequence’ test… don’t use ‘foreseeability’ as in the englih cases (279 bottom); McHugh – escape cases p284 bottom – p 825…p825 middle, current authorities on escape are a mess… p286 use ‘reasonable foresight in preference to ‘natural consequence’ test and ‘operating and substantial cause test’ in escape cases; ¾ down page 287

Application/conclusion:

1. Mason CJ: ‘I would reject the applicants submission that the summing up was deficient’ (re ‘identifying act’; McHugh J said p 289 top)

2. The trial judge’s direction on causation was correct in accordance with above quote

3. P 287 bottom whether Vs death was a ‘reasonably foreseeable consequence’ – quote from ‘it was reasonably foreseeable because… ferocity of the attack, such fear; her being irrational was  foreseeable etc.