Murder is an offence under section 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 which carries a maximum penalty of life in prison.
Section 18(1)(b) makes clear that every other punishable homicide is considered manslaughter, an offence which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years in prison.
The law states that you can only be found guilty of murder in the following situations:
This means that you must be shown to have deliberately caused the other person’s death through your actions or failure to act.
This means that you must be shown to have deliberately caused ‘grievous bodily harm’ to another person, which led to their death. Grievous bodily harm means ‘really serious harm,’ including permanent or serious disfigurements, such as broken bones and internal organ damage.
This refers to situations where you knew, or should have known, that your actions or omissions would probably result in another person’s death.
You can also be charged with murder if you caused another person’s death while committing another serious offence – for example, if you kill someone during the course of a sexual assault.
(a) No act or omission which was not malicious, or for which the accused had lawful cause or excuse, shall be within this section, and
(b) No punishment or forfeiture shall be incurred by any person who kills another by misfortune only.
Self-defence is also a complete defence to murder.
Various other sections in the Crimes Act deal with murder in specific situations. You can click on the below links for more information:
Read on for more information.
Our client is a 40 year old man from Greystanes in greater Western Sydney.
He lived with his older brother and elderly mother until her death in September 2017.
On 23 August 2017, our client and his brother called an ambulance for their mother, explaining that she had become bedridden and that her food and water intake had decreased.
Following admission to hospital, our client’s mother was found to have a number of bed sores which had become infected. That infection subsequently led to sepsis and our client’s mother passed away 10 days after being conveyed to hospital.
Following the death of their mother, our client and his brother were charged with her manslaughter. The Crown alleged that they had been criminally negligent by failing to properly care for her, and that their failure to provide care caused her death. Both our client and his brother pleaded not guilty.
We successfully reached agreement with the Crown to have the trial heard by judge alone.
The Crown case was that as a result of assuming responsibility for the care of their mother, the brothers were required to exercise reasonable care for her health and nourishment.
It was alleged that in the month before the mother’s admission to hospital, the brothers negligently breached that duty by failing to provide proper care and hygiene for their mother’s bed sores, by neglecting to obtain medical treatment and not providing adequate nutrition and hydration.
It was further alleged that these omissions caused the 72-year old mother’s death because the infection, that ultimately proved fatal, entered her bloodstream through the bed sores.
Our client and his brother did not deny owing a duty of care to their mother. They did, however, deny any negligence in that care and disputed that the infection resulted from any breach on their part.
During to course of the case, our defence team obtained materials which suggested that the mother had full cognitive capacity, and that she had repeatedly refused medical care in the years leading up to her death.
Given the nature and extent of the material obtained, and our successful cross-examination of the Crown’s medical experts – who conceded in court that there were refusals to receive medical care – our defence team made the forensic decision not to call our client to the witness stand.
Rather, our strong position at the end of the Crown case led to our decision to call only one defence witness, an elderly gentleman who had known the lady for several years through their interactions at the local church. The man’s evidence strongly corroborated our instructions and the medical evidence regarding the mother’s history of refusing medical treatment.
The presiding judge found that the Crown had failed to establish that the mother suffered from dementia or lacked mental capacity prior to her admission to hospital. His Honour further found there was no evidence of long-term nutritional deficiency, which was again consistent with our client’s account that he provided his mother with all her meals.
The judge additional found there was no evidence that our client “knew at any time prior to [his mother] being hospitalised how medically significant it was” and that the Crown failed to establish the brothers “exhibited less than reasonable care in failing to procure medical assistance…”
His Honour agreed that the mother was “a conscious patient with full legal capacity.”
He therefore rejected the Crown’s case, and found that a reasonable person in our client’s position should not be taken to possess the medical knowledge and expertise required to care for a person suffering from bed sores.
Our client was found not guilty for those reasons.
Our client is a 39-year-old computer consultant and family man from Sydney’s western suburbs.
The family’s sleeping arrangements were that our client would sleep in a bedroom with his 7-year-old daughter, while his wife slept in another bedroom with their 4-month-old daughter.
It was not in dispute that on the day in question, our client and his daughter had been asleep when our client awoke and put his hands around his daughter’s throat and squeezed, preventing her from breathing. The child was eventually able to scream for her mother, who came to the room and rescued her.
Police were called and our client said, “I just tried to murder my daughter”. They asked “what do you mean by murder?”, to which he replied “I tried to kill her”. He further admitted trying to strangle her to death.
His wife told police he may be suffering from schizophrenia.
Police charged our client with three offences, the most serious of which was ‘intent to murder’, which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment.
The law states that a person is not guilty of a crime if they were “labouring a defect of reason”, such as suffering from auditory hallucinations and delusional beliefs which caused them to be unaware that their actions were wrong. This is often referred to as the 'McNaughton defence'.
We referred our client to a prominent psychiatrist who confirmed the diagnosis of schizophrenia, and a number of matters relevant to his defence.
We requested withdrawal of all three charges on that basis, but the DPP refused to withdraw all of them, and the matter proceeded to a judge-alone trial in Downing Centre District Court.
Many criminal law firms brief 'wig and gown' barristers when serious cases are set-down for trial, but we are often able to avoid this due to the vast courtroom experience of our specialist lawyers - all of whom are Senior Lawyers with years of criminal defence experience. Our firm’s ability to independently represent clients to a very high standard in extremely serious cases sets us apart from many other law firms, and can save clients vast amounts in legal costs.
Our Senior Managing Lawyer conducted the trial independently, and our client was found not guilty of all charges.
After a person is acquitted due to mental illness, the judge must then decide whether they should be detained in a prison hospital, mental health facility hospital, or released with or without conditions.
Our senior lawyer was able to convince the judge that our client should be released on condition that he comply with a mental health treatment plan involving prescribed medication and regular consultations with his psychiatrist and psychologist. He is now getting the help he desperately needs, while attempting to mend his family relationship and move forward with his life.
In the High Court of Australia, Sydney Criminal Lawyers® successfully appealed the triple murder conviction of a 32-year old man from Greenacre in Sydney's West.
The man came to our firm after being convicted by a jury in the Supreme Court of New South Wales in connection with a spate of murders in Sydney's west.
We made an application for 'special leave' to appeal the conviction on the basis of a number of errors of law in the justice's directions to the jury both in the course of the evidence and in his Honour's summing up.
When the matter proceeded to a hearing, the High Court agreed that the directions resulted in a 'miscarriage of justice'.
Their Honours quashed our client's convictions and ordered that the matter be remitted to the Supreme Court for a retrial.
After submitting extensive written 'representations' to the Director of Public Prosecutions and fighting for proceedings to be discontinued, Sydney Criminal Lawyers® succeeded in having all charges withdrawn against a 41 year old Hunters Hill man charged with manslaughter.
Sydney Criminal Lawyers® successfully applied for bail in the highly publicised manslaughter case of a 41 year old Hunters Hill man.
The defendant was charged with the involuntary manslaughter of 74 year old Janet May Jackson for allegedly failing to call an ambulance after finding her injured at her home. He was a friend of the infirm Mrs Jackson for 15 years. Mrs Jackson was found dead at home some days later.
The case continues and Sydney Criminal Lawyers® will fight to have the charge withdrawn.
UPDATE: ALL PROCEEDINGS WITHDRAWN
