R v TABER; R v STYMAN; R v STYMAN [2002] NSWSC 1239

R v TABER; R v STYMAN; R v STYMAN [2002] NSWSC 1239

Any person who deliberately puts another in danger comes under a legal duty to take steps to remove that danger, and failure to do so may constitute an omission causing death. If at any time during the period of omission the accused has the relevant state of mind (reckless indifference to whether the deceased will probably die), the jury may find them guilty of murder. The breach of duty by omission after placing the deceased in peril is capable of justifying a verdict of murder if combined with the necessary mens rea.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Post No Case Submission, Judgment on How Murder Should Be Left to the Jury
Outcome
Determined murder should be left to the jury on the basis of omission to fulfil duty combined with requisite mens rea; no directed verdict of not guilty given.
Legal Topics
['murder by Reckless Indifference' 'duty to Rescue' 'actus Reus and Mens Rea' 'omission Constituting Actus Reus' 'causation and Novus Actus Interveniens']
['criminal Law'] ['murder by Reckless Indifference' 'duty to Rescue' 'actus Reus and Mens Rea' 'omission Constituting Actus Reus' 'causation and Novus Actus Interveniens']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Post No Case Submission, Judgment on How Murder Should Be Left to the Jury

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether omission to rescue deceased deliberately placed in danger constitutes actus reus for murder' 'Whether binding, gagging and abandonment followed by omission to rescue constitute a single transaction' 'Whether mens rea and actus reus must exist at the same time for murder' 'Whether an unsuccessful attempt to rescue determines duty to remove danger']

Ratio Decidendi

Any person who deliberately puts another in danger comes under a legal duty to take steps to remove that danger, and failure to do so may constitute an omission causing death. If at any time during the period of omission the accused has the relevant state of mind (reckless indifference to whether the deceased will probably die), the jury may find them guilty of murder. The breach of duty by omission after placing the deceased in peril is capable of justifying a verdict of murder if combined with the necessary mens rea.

Court Disposition

Determined murder should be left to the jury on the basis of omission to fulfil duty combined with requisite mens rea; no directed verdict of not guilty given.

Orders

  • []