Recent Judicial Decisions
| Published date | 01 April 1946 |
| Date | 01 April 1946 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0032258X4601900203 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Recent Judicial Decisions
MURDER
COMMITTED
DURING
ARMED
ROBBERY:
INTENTION
TO
FRIGHTEN
R. v. Jarmain
THE definition of murder does not require any intention to kill on
the part of the accused; it is sufficient if death occurs as a result of
an act of violence done in the course of committing a felony of violence.
A familiar illustration is death occurring as a result of a violent rape.
R. v: Jarmain (62 T.L.R. 33) is a case where the death occurred as a
result of robbery with violence although the immediate act which caused
the death, the pressing of the trigger of a loaded pistol, might perhaps
have not been intended by the accused.
The
accused entered a garage
just
before closing time with the
intention of holding up the owner with his loaded pistol and com-
mitting robbery.
The
only person in the garage was a woman cashier,
who was counting the day's takings. Only the accused survived to give
an account of what happened. According to his story, he said to
her:
"I'll have that, sister." She saw the pistol in his hand
but
replied :
"
Don't
be silly."
The
accused, who until then had the pistol in his
right hand pointing at her, now changed it over to his left hand and
cocked it twice, thus allowing one live round to be ejected,
saying:
"This ain't no toy," and hoping thereby to frighten her. She
replied:
"
Don't
be absurd."
The
accused said no more,
but
kept the pistol in
his left hand pointed at the woman and with his finger on the trigger.
When he had cocked it for the second time he had introduced a live
round into the breech.
Then,
he alleged, he must have inadvertently
pressed the trigger, for the pistol went off and the bullet hit the woman;
she later died of the wound.
The
accused grabbed a pile of notes and
ran out.
On these facts the trial judge at the Central Criminal Court directed
the
jury
that it made no difference on the issue of murder that the
accused did not intend or desire the pistol to go off.
The
jury
found him
guilty, and he appealed on the ground that as he pressed the trigger
inadvertently it was only manslaughter. His argument required the
judge to isolate the act of pressing the trigger from all the surrounding
circumstances of violence and felony and to ask whether or not
that
pressure was a voluntary act. But the Court of Criminal Appeal held
the law of constructive murder did not require
this:
even if the actual
pressing of the trigger was inadvertent, as the appellant said it was, it
was still murder.
There
were many circumstances.
The
pistol had been
87
To continue reading
Request your trial