Thanks for this - so it is slightly different, but 'Reckless Murder' from the first strand still applies? (Voluntary committed acts). My underline and bold.
'....the accused can be found guilty if they knew it was probable that serious injury would result from their voluntary acts. This is called reckless murder.
An offence is considered “reckless” if the accused intentionally committed an act and knew that it could reasonably cause harm or kill someone, even if they did not intend to harm anyone. In other words, the accused was willing to run the risk of someone else being injured or killed when they committed the act.
link here
Murder & Manslaughter Defence Lawyers Victoria | Sher Criminal Lawyers
Thanks for this Nikynoo
Whilst I appreciate not everyone agrees, I for one think there may be a scenario where what starts out as an accidental vehicle hit due to reckless &/or drunk/drug driving, could lead to police prosecuting a murder charge due to:
(a) the initial deliberate act of driving under influence, being intentionally reckless in such a way that could reasonably kill an unsuspecting jogger. Eg speeding over a crest on a jogging track. And/or
(b) the subsequent deliberate actions to fail to call for help, deliberately allow victim to die, deliberate cover up the accident and hide a body.
It’s clear others on WS also see this as one possible theory as to what happened to SM. I acknowledge this could be a very long bow for police. I do wonder if it’s intended to spook the accused into revealing the location of the body, in return for a downgrade to manslaughter. I wonder if the accused has more to hide, horrors the accused is so ashamed of in the cold light of day they cannot bring themselves to reveal the location. Or maybe so amped on coke they literally can’t remember. Or maybe the accused thinks it’s a smart tactic? IMO
[Edit: to add, also IMO if this is what occurred, then it was definitely not a “hit and run” scenario, which by definition is fleeing the scene, not even stopping. As opposed to sticking around to meticulously cover up the scene, hide a body etc. IMO the police have to answer an emphatic and firm “NO” to any suggestion it’s a “hit and run” as to do otherwise would be seen to excuse and diminish the accused deliberate and deplorable behaviour after the “hit”.]
One poster asked how police could prosecute driving under influence weeks after the fact. It is a great question. I wonder would CCTV from pubs and bars, hours of footage of the accused drinking, even social media videos of drug taking, be sufficient?
I also think it’s very plausible this was more of a deliberate attack, not involving vehicle, some sort of fantasy. I think likely spontaneous, but maybe planned - maybe the bender & drugs was the prequel to something planned, getting up the “courage” to act out the fantasy. IMO
7news.com.au
