Exploring Jessica's Liability in Daniel's Demise

I INTRODUCTION

This paper shall discuss Jessica’s liability for Daniel’s death.

II MURDER

Section 18 of the Crimes Act provides that, ‘murder is committed where the accused does an act, or omission that causes death with: reckless indifference to human life, an intention to kill or, an intention to cause grievous bodily harm or with the necessary mental state for an offence which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years servitude’.

A Voluntariness

Whether Jessica voluntarily committed the act leading to Daniel’s death?
Voluntariness requires a ‘willed act’ that the accused has ‘control’ over. Involuntary acts are acts of Automatism or reflex actions. Non-Insane Automatism

The ‘but for’ test laid out by McHugh J in Royall asks whether the victim would not be dead ‘but for’ the accused’s behavior then he or she is the factual causation. The prosecution may argue that Daniel would not be dead ‘but for’ Jessica’s act of admistrating incorrect medication. The defence may find that ‘but for’ Robert’s omission, Daniel would not be dead. Causation requires Jessica to have legal or causal responsibility for the death as well asfacutal. The tests for legal and causal responability are substantial or significant causal effect, natural consequences and reasonably foreseeability: R v Royall.
The prosecution will argue that the act of giving Daniel the insulin had a ‘substantial causal effect’ because Daniel would not have been in that situation if Jessica had not administrated the incorrect medication. Daneil’s death is a ‘natural consequence’ of Jesicca’s conduct as it is ‘reasonably foreseeable’ that providing incorrect medication will amount to harm. The defence may argue Novus Actus Intervenes because Robert had conducted an omission, however the omission was not abnormal occurrence, unreasonable conduct of the accused trying to escape, actions of the victim, action of a third party or unusual medical treatment therefore the chain of causation is not broken. If however, Robert’s actions are taken into account Jessica would still be liable because ‘the original wound is still operating