QLD Criminal Law - Mercy Killings

[Jen_CM]

Hi,

I'm confused about intent and mercy-killings. I know that intent is satisfied in cases like these, but what about if the accused hoped their conduct wouldn't work (and that there is a chance it might not)? And if they are reluctant to go through with the conduct? Does that establish intent or not?

Thanks!

 

[Tim W]

If I was prosecuting that, then I'd be advocating that the accused was reckless as to the possible outcomes of their actions.
That's enough to secure a manslaughter conviction, even if not murder.

If I was defending it, then I'd wondering about duress (by the deceased on the accused).
The problem would be proving it.

 

[Jen_CM]

Thanks! So rather than intent, it would be reckless indifference to human life (in the context of the mental elements of murder)? And if that is fulfilled, why would it be manslaughter and not murder?

 

[Tim W]

A little background to your question might get you a more... relevant... answer?

 

[Jen_CM]

So if I was to assess the criminal liability for someone who killed another after being begged to, but there's a chance that the drugs may not work (as only about half is left), what would that mean? They are also hoping it does not work.

In your first answer, you stated that it might mean the accused was reckless. When looking at the three main mental elements of murder (intent to cause death, or intent to cause grievous bodily harm, or reckless indifference), which one suits the conduct more?

You also stated that it would secure a manslaughter conviction, but why would that be? We've learnt that the way to go from murder to manslaughter is either because the mental elements of murder aren't fulfilled, or if there's mitigating circumstances.