IssuesIf Laura and Jason are liable for Murder.Is their aspects of for manslaughter by negligent omission prosecution to laura? Is their possibilities that Jason and Laura may be liable for Manslaughter.Is their a Defence for Jason?LauraActus Rea Was there an act or Omission?It was evident there was an omission as reiterated in R v Stone & Dobinson  1 QB 354. They had a responsibility to look after the deceased but instead left her to die. There was a possibility of manslaughter by criminal negligence and Manslaughter by omission due involuntary, unintentional killing .
As Matt was intoxicated, there was a duty of care to make sure that they are safe. If they are in your care and intoxicated there is a high chance that an individual is in a vulnerable position to be harmed. Protected through Crimes Act 1900 NSW, S18 Anyone who puts someone in danger has a legal duty to act . This is followed in the tests of R v Taber (2002) 56 NSWLR 443.
where the accused deliberately commits a wrongful act that places another person in danger, he or she owes that person a duty to take reasonable steps to render assistance and redress the danger. Louisa and Aaron just laughed and said not to worry, sometimes it took first years a while to find their way back.This showed that they did not take reasonable steps to look after a intoxicated person under their duty.Was it voluntary ? Involuntary because it was an unintentional killing as see in Ugle v The Queen  HCA 25 . It was no willed by the defendant therefore not voluntary.Did it cause the death ? It is evident that Laura’s actions did cause Matt’s death. Substantial cause test – If they didn’t leave Matt in the national park he wouldn’t of died, as seen in Royall (1991) 172 CLR 378. As long as the defendant’s action was the cause of the death, they will be considered as causing the injury. Was there Novus actus intervenes ” There can be a potential Novus Actus intervenes, due to the fact that Matt was in a national park and something else like heat and similar factors could have taken place. Though the relevant law in R v Hallett  SASR 141. at the time that Hallett left the scene, Whiting was still alive, but when he returned some hours later he had died and was floating in the water. This cases gives rise to the principle that the chain of causation can only be broken by a new intervening act. The setting for Matt’s death was in a national park. There was no extraordinary coincidental events their fore there is no Novus Actus intervenes.Mens reaWas there an intention to kill? It is seen that Laura was merely giving Matt and Jason an initiation rite , reciting the fact that what they did leave them intoxicated in the park was something to be of fun and laughter not a deliberate intention to kill .Was there an intention to grievous bodily harm?Although there was no necessary of Men’s rea of in intention to kill, it can be possibility intention reiterated through grievance bodily harm. Laura did not intend to cause grievous though it can be said she did due to s 4 of the Crimes Act : Any serious disfiguring of the person as they were left without their phones or wallets, to make their way back to the college they were seriously disfigured as they were hopeless in getting home or anybody assisting them in getting home. If they had their phone on them, they probably could have been saved when conducting the search example tracking the phone etc.Was their RecklessnessThere is seemingly recklessness as leaving an intoxicated individual in a national park is very dangerous and can put the individual in great danger. Align with test of R v TY  VSCA 113. The focus on the recklessness must be whether the accused should have foreseen the possibility of death or serious injury, not whether a reasonable person would have foreseen anything.JASONActus Rea Was there an act or Omission?There was an act , as Jason drove straight into Louisa and Aaron and killed Aaron instantly. S18 Crime Act 1900 nsw a) .Was it voluntary ? It was voluntary due to the fact he could of stopped the car instead he ran them over. Ugle v The Queen  HCA 25. for it to be voluntary it needs to be a wilful act.Did it cause the death ? His actions was the cause of death as seen in the Substantial cause test Royall (1991) 172 CLR 378. where as long as the defendant’s action was a part of that, he will be considered as causing the injury.Was there Novus actus intervenes ” Non applicableMens reaWas there an intention to kill? There was an intention to kill as he saw them and ran them over. S 18 a subjective intention alignment with Parker v R (1963) 111 CLR 610. It is what the accused intended, not what a reasonable person in the accused’s position would have intended. The accused’s intention can be inferred from their action, but the prosecution must establish this inference.Was there an intention to grievous bodily harm?There was an intention to cause grievous bodily harm due to the fact he could of stopped the car instead he speeded up an crashed into them Sect s 18 of Crimes act 1900 (NSW) Harm of serious kind DPP v Smith  AC 290 House of Lords where there is shown of some sort of harm. The men’s rea test for a conviction of murder is what in all the circumstances the ordinary reasonable man would have contemplated to be the natural result of the grievous bodily harm.Was there Recklessness? There was reckless indifference to human life as seen in s18 and the R v Crabbe (1985) 156 CLR 363 . Mr Crabbe crashed his car into a bar after not being allowed to be given aland killed five people and injured many more a person who, without lawful justification or excuse, does an act knowing that it is probable that death or grievous bodily harm will result, is guilty of murder if death in fact resultsIs There a Defence?A Defense May be applicable for Jason due to s23A Crimes Act 1900 NSW of mental the elements of abnormality of the mind or disease of the mind. This could turn murder to manslaughter. The accused has mental impairment that affected him at the time of the offence Jason was best friend with Matt, he had a sleepless, long night waiting for Matt and was extremely worried. He helped the police search the national park for three days. This depicts a person not in the right state of mind. In Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) S23A Substantial impairment by abnormality of mind could be applied as the person’s capacity to understand events, or to judge whether the person’s actions were right or wrong, or to control himself or herself, was substantially impaired by an abnormality of mind arising from an underlying condition seen in R v Byrne (1960) 2 QB 396 where it held that it has to be a different mind set to a reasonable man. Insanity could also be used as a defence M’Naghten’s Case [1843-1860] ALL ER Rep 229. test the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing;.ConclusionLaura may be liable for aspects for manslaughter by negligent omission prosecution must as there is aspects of recognised legal duty to act, omission to fulfil duty in manner exhibiting the great degree of negligence required by law of manslaughter death caused by omission. Jason maybe liable for murder due to Actus Rea Conceding with Men’s Rea . Though there is a defence that may be applied. Their fore may allow him to get manslaughter rather than Murder.ReferenceBooks Bronitt S, McSherry B. (2017) Principles of Criminal Law, Thomas Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited, Fourth Edition, Lawbook Co, Sydney AustraliaJames N, Field R, , Walkden-Brown J (2019) The New Lawyer Foundation, The New Lawyer, Wiley, Second Edition, AustraliaAustralian Guide to Legal Citation (Melbourne University Law Review Association, 4rd ed, 2018) Stephen Bottomley and Simon Bronitt, Law in Context (Federation Press, 4th ed, 2012) Kenneth Arenson, Mirko Bagaric and Peter Gillies, Australian Criminal Law in the Common Law Jurisdictions (Oxford, 3rd ed, 2011)Cases DPP v Smith  AC 290 House of LordsParker v R (1963) 111 CLR 610R v Stone & Dobinson  1 QB 354R v Taber (2002) 56 NSWLR 443Royall (1nd 991) 172 CLR 378R v Hallett  SASR 141R v TY  VSCA 113. R v Crabbe (1985) 156 CLR 363The Queen v Lavender (2005) 222 CLR 67 Ugle v The Queen  HCA 25Legislation Criminal Law New South Wales ” Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)Websites