Crimes Act 1900
| Crimes Act 1900 | |
|---|---|
 |
|
| Parliament of New South Wales | |
| An Act to consolidate the Statutes relating to Criminal Law. | |
| Citation | 1900 No 40 |
| Date of Royal Assent | 31 October 1900 |
| Administered by | Department of Attorney General and Justice |
| Status: Current legislation | |
The Crimes Act 1900 is a New South Wales statute that codifies the common law crimes for the state of New South Wales in Australia. Along with the Crimes Act 1914 and the Federal Criminal Code Act 1995 (both federal), these two pieces of legislation form the majority of criminal law for New South Wales.
As it is the major criminal law statute for New South Wales, it is an extensive legal document of 582 different sections, which define an extensive list of offences under New South Wales law.
The same original NSW act forms the basis for the Crimes Act 1900 (Australian Capital Territory) which has 444 different sections as of 1 September 2016.
For a person to be guilty of murder, the prosecution must prove the actus reus and mens rea for murder under NSW law. The actus reus (the act) of murder is evident - A causes B's death.
The most culpable mens rea for murder is intent to kill. If A intended to kill B, whether it was premeditated or on the spur of the moment, A is guilty of murder.
Under NSW law, the next most culpable state is intent to cause grievous bodily harm - so if A inflicts grievous bodily harm on B and B dies, A is guilty of B's murder.
The next level of culpability is 'reckless indifference to human life' in which A saw that his actions carried a probability of B's death (for example, driving a truck into a pub as in R v Crabbe). A further qualification in NSW law was held in Royall. For murder, the prosecution has to prove that the accused foresaw the probability of death, as opposed to the probability of death OR grievous bodily harm. In R v Faure the Victorian Court of Appeal described "probable" as meaning "a substantial, or real and not remote, chance, whether or not it is more than 50 per cent". Similarly, it was held in Darkan v R, that "probable must be distinguished from merely possible".
As long as one of these above mental states is present, and given that the test of causation is satisfied, the intended method of death becomes irrelevant. For example, in Royall, an intention to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm on the victim with an ashtray could be directly linked to her decision, due to a well-founded apprehension of physical harm, to jump out of a window to her death (the actus reus).
The final level is constructive murder (also termed felony murder) in which A kills B (even if unintentionally - the only question that can be raised is whether the act was voluntary or not - see Ryan) during, or immediately after, the commission of a crime.
...
Wikipedia