What is homicide?

Homicide is generically termed as the act of killing someone in the hands of someone else. This act requires the activity of a volitional act by the person termed as the “convict” that leads to the other person’s death. Hence, the reasons behind certifying any act as a homicidal act rests upon the activities such as accidental acts, reckless behaviours causing lethality or negligent acts even if there does not lie any strong intension of causing harm to the victim. Homicides have been broadly classified into multiple overlapping legislative categories such as murder, justifiable homicide, and manslaughter, killing in war, capital punishment and euthanasia. The NSW law acts completely prohibits every single instances mentioned here under the Crimes Act 1900. Moreover, according the provided scenario, negligent homicide comes into action in this regards which can be stated as a criminal charge brought against a person who had been associated with any type of murderous plot or murder as a whole through the aspects of criminal negligence. The grievous bodily harms under the NSW law statutes state that such act offer the convict to contract the victim with lethal pathogenic agents that are responsible for the manifestation of the fatal disease and finally causes death of the victim.   

Under the Australian law manslaughter is the term used to designate those acts or offences which are not intentional in nature or which is the result of some accidental acts or commissions.

There are two types of manslaughter:

• Voluntary manslaughter

Voluntary manslaughter is an act which is performed intentionally under the influence of any kind of provocation or rage. It does not involve any kind of previous planning as it is the consequence of the situation.

• Involuntary manslaughter  

Under this kind of man slaughtering there is no existence of any kind of prior intention and the act is committed accidentally resulting in death.  

Bobbi is being shown to represent pro bono advocacy to marginalised groups in the developing nations. This means that she is aware of the homicide cases and the NSW law of grievous bodily harms which might occur at par with that of the extraterritorial intervention. The offshore horizontal transfer of zoonotic diseases and/or communicable diseases is also represented under the Criminal Act 1900 under the NSW Law. While she was diagnosed with Ebola Virus She was being prescribed not to travel overseas with the virus still in her circulatory system abducted from breastfeeding her baby during her quarantine duration. However, she didn’t adhere to the same and few days later, the child got contacted with the virus and the doctor under call was shown to be slightly inattentive in his work and diagnosis as well and hence, no appropriate medication was being provided to the child. Concomitantly, the child showed severe symptoms of the disease with high fever and blood vomits and was declared dead eventually. Bobbi was being charged with murder case and also with the alternative charge of negligent manslaughter under the Crimes Act 1900 No. 40 Part 3 Division 1 Section 21.

Types of Manslaughter

If at the time of commission of the act which has resulted in death the offender could foresee the prudent consequences of the act and still committed the same regardless of the outcomes then the accused would be guilty of the offence of murder. In this case Bobbi can be booked under this section under the clause reckless indifference to life. Irrespective of being aware of the fact that the harmful viruses of Ebola still exists in her body, she went on breastfeed the child. Thus, it may be stated that acting in a certain way even after the warning against travelling offshore with her condition and breastfeeding her child with Ebola Virus still inflicted in her can be regarded as the actus reus element of the mentioned case. The eventual death of the baby may be contributed to the actions undertaken by her.

When it comes to any crime, it can be either categorized as actus reus, or mens rea. While actus reus is the physical act responsible for the crime, mens rea is regarded as the intention of doing the crime. As per the given case scenario, the elements of Actus reus can stated to be evident. Since involuntary manslaughter has been noted in this case from the part of Bobbi Stevenson, it can be stated that the action or specific conducts eventually led to drastic consequences as such. Bobbi Stevenson being a lawyer resides in Sydney. In relation to work Bobbi had to travel to Democratic Republic of Congo. After arriving there she contracted with a very serious ailment that is Ebola Virus Disease. After being diagnosed with the same she was treated over there and was clearly informed that she has not recovered completely as the traits of the virus are still there in her body, her breast milk may also contain the same. Henceforth she was refused to return to return to Sydney but still she decided to leave the place and returned back to Sydney. She was quite sure that she had completely recovered from the same.

Despite of the warning given by the MSF centre to her she breastfed the baby, not thinking about the virus. As a result of which the baby also contracted the virus and death was the ultimate consequence.

In this case under the Crimes Act 1900, Bobbi is considered to be liable under section 18 of the Act which states the essentials of murder and manslaughter. The section states about four categories which shall be taken into account to make a person guilty of murder:

• Existence of intention to kill the person
• Intention of inflicting grievous bodily harm onto other person
• Acting in reckless indifference to human life
• Death of the other person during the time of commission of a serious offence.

Violation of NSW Law

Apart from the actus reus part of the case, it is also important that the aspects of mens rea are evaluated as well for a thorough analysis of the mentioned case scenario. When it comes to serious offences, there are certain levels of intents which are responsible. While direct intent is easier to establish with the defendant having specific purpose of conducting the crime, oblique intent is a situation when the consequences are not anticipated, however, they had prior idea regarding the chances of such incidences to occur.

One of the similar cases that can be mentioned to be similar to the mentioned case scenario is that of R v Gibbis and Proctor, where it was seen that the man and wife were regarded to be liable of manslaughter by not providing to the basic requirements of the child. This can be also regarded as the failure to act in best interest of the victims. Omission to actus reus is apparent in the mentioned scenario as well. As the guardian of the child, it was statute duty of Bobbi Stevenson to look after the child. However, looking after the factual causations, it is evident that she didn’t adhere to the instructions of MSF. Thus, even though she did not have the intention to harm the child, she was aware in prior regarding the probable effects of her action of breastfeeding. Hence, it was due to her negligence that the child faced such consequences.

In addition to this, recklessness can also be stated to be applicable in this case as well. As per the definition in R v Cunningham, recklessness is considered when any individual is able to foresee the harms associated with an act but irrespective of that goes on to act the same. In this case, the act of voluntary negligence and at par to that, negligent homicide comes into action where Bobbi irrespective of having this knowledge that she is contaminated with the virus and could make her child contract with the viral agent as well, still went on to breastfeeding her baby and as a result, her son got contracted with the disease and died.

Bobbi’s liability in this case can be found to be dual in nature. first and foremost, irrespective of being a lawyer herself, she neglected the fact that according to the Crimes Act 1900 Section 4, extraterritorial or offshore visits with contagious infection that can lead to lethality cannot be performed or undertaken until and unless, either the person under context had been completely quarantined or the person had been provided with special care and permission for the visit. This act of hers violated the section 21 of the Crimes Law Act 1900 which demonstrated child murder by Bobbi by wilfully causing physiological violence by breastfeeding her baby even after knowing the fact that her son could get contaminated with the disease.

It can be interpreted that Bobbi had been found guilty under the two acts of the NSW criminal law statutes and that she had complete knowledge of her disease and she violated the offshore acts as well because of which she had carried a deadly pathogen into her own country from another demographics which is again another crime and violation of the lawsuit and because of the negligence, her son got contracted with the disease and resulted in his death. Hence, negligent homicide and voluntary manslaughter actions can be deemed suitable on to the convict.

References:  

Braun, Kerstin. ““Till Death Us Do Part”: Homicide Defenses for Women in Abusive Relationships—Similar Problems—Different Responses in Germany and Australia.” Violence against women 23, no. 10 (2017): 1177-1204.

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 24 Manslaughter—punishment

Dyer, Andrew. “IL v the Queen: Joint Criminal Enterprise and the Constructive Murder Rule: Is This Where Their Logic Leads You.” Sydney L. Rev. 39 (2017): 245.

Dyer, Andrew. “The” Australian Position” Concerning Criminal Complicity: Principle, Policy or Politics?.” Sydney Law Review40, no. 2 (2018).

Fitz-Gibbon, Kate, and Sandra Walklate, eds. Homicide, Gender and Responsibility: An International Perspective. Routledge, 2016.

Joyce, Samuel. “A short history of industrial manslaughter prosecutions.” Precedent (Sydney, NSW) 142 (2017): 46.

Loveless, Janet, Mischa Allen, and Caroline Derry. Complete criminal law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press, 2018.

Mazerolle, Paul, Li Eriksson, Richard Wortley, and Holly Johnson. “Homicide in Australia and New Zealand.” The Handbook of Homicide (2017): 412.

Stark, Findlay. Culpable Carelessness: Recklessness and Negligence in the Criminal Law. Cambridge University Press, 2016.

Ukkonen, Helena, Paula Pirhonen, Maria Herrala, Jopi JW Mikkonen, Surya P. Singh, Raija Sormunen, and Arja M. Kullaa. “Oral mucosal epithelial cells express the membrane anchored mucin MUC1.” Archives of oral biology 73 (2017): 269-273.

R v Cunningham [1982] AC 566

Yannoulidis, Steven. Mental state defences in criminal law. Routledge, 2016.

Yeo, Stanley. “Manslaughter versus special homicide offences: An Australian perspective.” In Criminal Liability for Non-Aggressive Death, pp. 211-246. Routledge, 2016.