Ryan v R

Last updated
Ryan v The Queen
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
CourtHigh Court of Australia
Decided3 March 1967
Citation(s)[1967] HCA 2, (1967) 121 CLR 205, (1967) 40 ALJR 488, [1967] ALR 577, 1967 WL 22945
Transcript(s) Original judgement
Case history
Appealed fromNSWSC
Case opinions
Application for special leave to appeal refused Appeal failed

Ryan v The Queen (abbreviated to Ryan v R) is a seminal case in Australian criminal law. The case is an application to the High Court of Australia for special leave to appeal a conviction for murder. It is often cited in cases of felony murder (referred to as constructive murder in Australian law) and when the issue of voluntariness is in question.

Contents

Facts

On March 10, 1965, Robert Patrick Ryan and his accomplice, Mr White, committed an armed robbery of a service station in Carramar, New South Wales. White would act as the getaway using a motorcycle, while Ryan would carry out the robbery proper using a sawn-off rifle. Mimicking a book he had read, Ryan planned to tie the service attendant up before absconding. While tying up the service attendant, Noel Francis Taylor, the rifle discharged, a bullet penetrated Taylor's neck and caused Taylor's death.

Ryan claimed the discharged of the rifle was accidental and that he was culpable for manslaughter, not murder. Under the doctrine of common purpose, White was also liable for Taylor's death, but was offered and accepted a plea of guilty of manslaughter. Ryan's manslaughter plea was refused by the prosecution and he was convicted of murder at trial. At the time, murder in New South Wales carried a mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment with the harshest sentence being death. Ryan received the former.

Judgement

Under New South Wales law, a conviction of murder requires that the death of the victim be caused by a voluntary action of the accused, that is to say a willful and deliberate action, and that the action be done with malice. Generally, the law will not hold people accountable for involuntary actions such as spasms, sneezes or twitches. While Ryan claimed that the pulling of the rifle trigger was an involuntary action and there was no way for the prosecution to prove otherwise, the actions that lead up to the discharge were voluntary: loading the gun, presenting it to menace the attendant, and pointing it at the victims neck.

New South Wales follows a modified version of the felony murder rule, wherein the prosecution does not need to prove malice to convict for murder if the death is caused "in an attempt to commit, or during or immediately after the commission, by the accused, or some accomplice with him, of a crime punishable by death or penal servitude for life." [1] Since Ryan's actions and Taylor's death occurred during and as the result of an armed robbery, which at the time was punishable with life imprisonment, the felony murder rule applied.

The High Court unanimously ruled that Ryan's application for special leave be refused. Subsequently, his conviction for murder and life sentence were upheld.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Murder</span> Unlawful killing of a human with malice aforethought

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse committed with the necessary intention as defined by the law in a specific jurisdiction. This state of mind may, depending upon the jurisdiction, distinguish murder from other forms of unlawful homicide, such as manslaughter. Manslaughter is killing committed in the absence of malice, such as in the case of voluntary manslaughter brought about by reasonable provocation, or diminished capacity. Involuntary manslaughter, where it is recognized, is a killing that lacks all but the most attenuated guilty intent, recklessness.

In law, provocation is when a person is considered to have committed a criminal act partly because of a preceding set of events that might cause a reasonable individual to lose self control. This makes them less morally culpable than if the act was premeditated (pre-planned) and done out of pure malice. It "affects the quality of the actor's state of mind as an indicator of moral blameworthiness."

In criminal law, diminished responsibility is a potential defense by excuse by which defendants argue that although they broke the law, they should not be held fully criminally liable for doing so, as their mental functions were "diminished" or impaired.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vehicular homicide</span> Unlawful killing of another human by criminally negligent or murderous operation of a vehicle

Vehicular homicide is a crime that involves the death of a person other than the driver as a result of either criminally negligent or murderous operation of a motor vehicle.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Felony murder rule</span> Legal doctrine in some common-law jurisdictions

The rule of felony murder is a legal doctrine in some common law jurisdictions that broadens the crime of murder: when someone is killed in the commission of a dangerous or enumerated crime, the offender, and also the offender's accomplices or co-conspirators, may be found guilty of murder.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lionel Tate</span> American convicted of first-degree murder when he was 13 years old

Lionel Alexander Tate is the youngest American citizen ever sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, though this sentence was eventually overturned. In January 2001, when Tate was 13, he was convicted of first-degree murder for the 1999 battering death of six-year-old Tiffany Eunick in Broward County, Florida.

In criminal law, automatism is a rarely used criminal defence. It is one of the mental condition defences that relate to the mental state of the defendant. Automatism can be seen variously as lack of voluntariness, lack of culpability (unconsciousness) or excuse. Automatism means that the defendant was not aware of his or her actions when making the particular movements that constituted the illegal act.

Malice aforethought is the "premeditation" or "predetermination" required as an element of some crimes in some jurisdictions and a unique element for first-degree or aggravated murder in a few. Insofar as the term is still in use, it has a technical meaning that has changed substantially over time.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Keith Faure</span> Australian career criminal

Keith George Faure, from Norlane, Victoria, Australia, is an Australian career criminal, convicted of multiple murders and manslaughters. He is currently serving life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 19 years for his role in two murders related to the Melbourne gangland killings. Faure's criminal history includes further convictions for armed robbery and breaking and entering.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Homicide Act 1957</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Homicide Act 1957 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It was enacted as a partial reform of the common law offence of murder in English law by abolishing the doctrine of constructive malice, reforming the partial defence of provocation, and by introducing the partial defences of diminished responsibility and suicide pact. It restricted the use of the death penalty for murder.

Murder is an offence under the common law of England and Wales. It is considered the most serious form of homicide, in which one person kills another with the intention to cause either death or serious injury unlawfully. The element of intentionality was originally termed malice aforethought, although it required neither malice nor premeditation. Baker, chapter 14 states that many killings done with a high degree of subjective recklessness were treated as murder from the 12th century right through until the 1974 decision in DPP v Hyam.

In the English law of homicide, manslaughter is a less serious offence than murder, the differential being between levels of fault based on the mens rea or by reason of a partial defence. In England and Wales, a common practice is to prefer a charge of murder, with the judge or defence able to introduce manslaughter as an option. The jury then decides whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of either murder or manslaughter. On conviction for manslaughter, sentencing is at the judge's discretion, whereas a sentence of life imprisonment is mandatory on conviction for murder. Manslaughter may be either voluntary or involuntary, depending on whether the accused has the required mens rea for murder.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Manslaughter</span> Homicide criminal charge less culpable than murder

Manslaughter is a common law legal term for homicide considered by law as less culpable than murder. The distinction between murder and manslaughter is sometimes said to have first been made by the ancient Athenian lawmaker Draco in the 7th century BC.

<i>Crimes Act 1900</i> Legislation of NSW, Australia that establishes a majority of criminal offences

The Crimes Act1900 (NSW) is an Act of the Parliament of New South Wales that defines an extensive list of offences and sets out punishments for the majority of criminal offences in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. The Act, alongside the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) and the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), form the almost complete basis of criminal law for the State. It is the primary criminal law statute of NSW, and which formed the basis for the Australian Capital Territory's Crimes Act1900 (ACT).

In Australia, murder is a criminal offence where a person, by a voluntary act or omission, causes the death of another person with either intent to kill, intent to inflict grievous bodily harm, or with reckless indifference to human life. It may also arise in circumstances where the accused was committing, or assisting in the commission, of a different serious crime that results in a person's death. It is usually punished by life imprisonment.

In the United States, the law for murder varies by jurisdiction. In many US jurisdictions there is a hierarchy of acts, known collectively as homicide, of which first-degree murder and felony murder are the most serious, followed by second-degree murder and, in a few states, third-degree murder, which in other states is divided into voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter such as reckless homicide and negligent homicide, which are the least serious, and ending finally in justifiable homicide, which is not a crime. However, because there are at least 52 relevant jurisdictions, each with its own criminal code, this is a considerable simplification.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal law of the United States</span>

Criminal law is a system of laws that is connected with crimes and punishments of an individual who commits crimes. In comparison, civil law is where the case argues their issues with one entity to another entity with support of the law. Crimes can vary in definition by jurisdiction but the basis for a crime are fairly consistent regardless.

Murder in Ohio constitutes the unlawful killing, under circumstances defined by law, of people within or under the jurisdiction of the U.S. state of Ohio.

Manslaughter is a crime in the United States. Definitions can vary among jurisdictions, but manslaughter is invariably the act of causing the death of another person in a manner less culpable than murder. Three types of unlawful killings constitute manslaughter. First, there is voluntary manslaughter which is an intentional homicide committed in "sudden heat of passion" as the result of adequate provocation. Second, there is the form of involuntary manslaughter which is an unintentional homicide that was committed in a criminally negligent manner. Finally, there is the form of involuntary manslaughter which is an unintentional homicide that occurred during the commission or attempted commission of an unlawful act which does not amount to a felony.

Murder in South Carolina law constitutes the intentional killing, under circumstances defined by law, of people within or under the jurisdiction of the U.S. state of South Carolina.

References

  1. Crimes Act1900 (NSW) s 18(1)(a)