Mcdonald V Mcdonald
-------------------------------------------------
CASE ANALYSIS
REX V MCDONALD AND MCDONALD St Qd [1904] 151
-------------------------------------------------
INTRODUCTION
In order for criminal liability to be placed, an accused must not only commit a specific act but also a breach of a duty concerned1. This concept was brought to the forefront in the case of R v McDonald and McDonald St R Qd [1904] 151.
The Supreme Court of QLD2 was called to consider the case of Angus and Flora McDonald, appealing against joint charges of Wilful Murder. The appellants were found to have breached laws respectful to s13 The Children’s Protection Act [1896]4 and sections 2855, 2866, 301 and 302 of The Criminal Code . The case was significant in establishing a duty of care on both persons in charge of a child, neglect of which holds the accused criminally responsible.
-------------------------------------------------
1 See E Colvin, J McKenchie, Criminal Law in Queensland & Western Australia: Cases & Commentary (5th ed, 2008) 3.9.
2 Prior to 1913 and the establishment of the Court of Criminal Appeal, a criminal case could be "reserved" for the consideration of the Full Court. (Queensland State Archives: Supreme Court (2011) Queensland Government, http://www.archivessearch.qld.gov.au/search/AgencyDetails.aspx? As at 8 April 2011)
3 Section 1: Any person who, having the custody, control, or charge of a child, being a boy under the age of fourteen years, or being a girl under the age of sixteen years, wilfully ill-treats, neglects, abandons, or exposes such child, or causes or procures such child to be ill-treated, neglected, abandoned or exposed in a manner likely to cause such child unnecessary suffering or injury to its health, shall be guilty of an offence within the summary jurisdiction of justices, and on conviction thereof, in a manner provided by The Justices Act of 1886, shall be liable, at the discretion of the Court, to a fine not exceeding £25, or
CASE ANALYSIS
REX V MCDONALD AND MCDONALD St Qd [1904] 151
-------------------------------------------------
INTRODUCTION
In order for criminal liability to be placed, an accused must not only commit a specific act but also a breach of a duty concerned1. This concept was brought to the forefront in the case of R v McDonald and McDonald St R Qd [1904] 151.
The Supreme Court of QLD2 was called to consider the case of Angus and Flora McDonald, appealing against joint charges of Wilful Murder. The appellants were found to have breached laws respectful to s13 The Children’s Protection Act [1896]4 and sections 2855, 2866, 301 and 302 of The Criminal Code . The case was significant in establishing a duty of care on both persons in charge of a child, neglect of which holds the accused criminally responsible.
-------------------------------------------------
1 See E Colvin, J McKenchie, Criminal Law in Queensland & Western Australia: Cases & Commentary (5th ed, 2008) 3.9.
2 Prior to 1913 and the establishment of the Court of Criminal Appeal, a criminal case could be "reserved" for the consideration of the Full Court. (Queensland State Archives: Supreme Court (2011) Queensland Government, http://www.archivessearch.qld.gov.au/search/AgencyDetails.aspx? As at 8 April 2011)
3 Section 1: Any person who, having the custody, control, or charge of a child, being a boy under the age of fourteen years, or being a girl under the age of sixteen years, wilfully ill-treats, neglects, abandons, or exposes such child, or causes or procures such child to be ill-treated, neglected, abandoned or exposed in a manner likely to cause such child unnecessary suffering or injury to its health, shall be guilty of an offence within the summary jurisdiction of justices, and on conviction thereof, in a manner provided by The Justices Act of 1886, shall be liable, at the discretion of the Court, to a fine not exceeding £25, or