Anastasia Qvist is an outstanding lawyer. My criminal law situation (family violence order) was difficult, complex and Ana's diligence saved me as I was going through the most difficult period of my life. Ana is down to earth, commonsense and she even kept our costs to a minimum. She is a skilled litigator and knows the ins and outs of the ACT Magistrates Court. She dealt skillfully with the DPP and is an excellent negotiator. You will get a fair representation and she genuinely cares about her clients. She has my complete recommendation. The lady goes to bat for her clients.
I would strongly recommend Anastasia to anyone who is seeking legal representation. As a first-time offender who was charged with a Level 2 Drink Driving offence, she walked me through every step of the matter and was very upfront and clear on all aspects of my case. She was always accessible when I needed advice. Her approach and advice were excellent. Under her representation, I received the best possible outcome and managed to avoid a criminal conviction. She was a pleasure to deal with throughout the whole matter.
Anastasia Qvist was very professional and helpful in every step of my matter. I got a very good outcome and I can’t thank you enough for your hard work and the Armstrong Legal team in Canberra. I would highly recommend her!!!
Throughout Angela has been the consummate professional. She maintained a calm, yet strong demeanour remained informative and completely open in her communication and took complete ownership of the situation. We felt confident we finally had an advocate to steer us out of the nightmare we were in, and she did so with great respect and sincerity. I cannot speak more highly of Angela. She has literally rescued our family from what looked very much like a hopeless future.
Words can’t describe how grateful I am to Trudie Cameron being my solicitor and to Andrew Tiedt presenting my case in the court. They both have been very supportive and amazingly professional and effective. I’ve got an absolutely fantastic outcome I couldn’t even dream about.
Soon after meeting Andrew I knew he was the solicitor I wanted to handle my matter. He immediately sprang into action which brought me stability and hope during a tumultuous time in my life. Andrew was never afraid to give me straight answers to my tough questions which is a true mark of integrity. He is clearly at ease in the court environment and I believe his calm and measured demeanour went a long way to helping me secure the best result from my day in court. I would certainly recommend you approach Andrew if you need assistance.
"Andrew Tiedt was very professional and considerate to personal circumstances and gave sound advice that resulted in the best outcome possible. Highly recommended."
Murder is one of the most serious criminal offences in New South Wales. It shares a close relationship to the offence of manslaughter. The difference between murder and manslaughter is that murder involves the killing of another person where the accused intended to kill or seriously injure the victim. Manslaughter is the unintended killing of a person as the result of an assault where serious harm was not intended or foreseen.
The maximum penalty for murder in New South Wales is imprisonment for life. However, lesser penalties can be imposed for murder.
The offence of murder is contained in section 18 of of the Crimes Act 1900. The section states that murder occurs when an act or omission of the accused is done with reckless indifference to human life or with the intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm upon a person, or in an attempt to commit, or during or immediately after the commission, of a crime punishable by imprisonment for life or for 25 years.
A homicide offence that does not amount to murder is manslaughter.
What must be proven?
To find a person guilty of murder the prosecution must prove each of the following matters beyond a reasonable doubt:
- That the accused did an act or failed to do an act;
- That the act, or failure to act, resulted in the death of another person; and
- That the accused either:
- intended to kill the person;
- intended to cause the person really serious bodily injury; or
- acted with reckless indifference to human life; that is, you foresaw that it was probable that death would result.
What acts may constitute murder?
The following acts can form the basis for a charge of murder.
- Shooting someone in the head or chest from close range;
- Being the getaway driver for two friends who take a loaded sawn-off shotguns into a bank and fatally shoot someone in the process;
- Purposefully not feeding your two-year-old child;
- Demolishing or blowing up a building without checking whether or not anyone is inside;
- Fatally attacking someone with a baseball bat because you want to seriously injure them; or
- Pushing someone off a 30-meter cliff.
A person charged with murder can validly defend the charge by arguing any of the following defence.
A person is not guilty of a criminal offence if they killed a person in self-defence. This is because the courts recognise that people have the right to defend themselves from physical attacks and threatened attacks. The defence of self-defence includes defending someone else from a physical attack.
When an accused raises the defence of self-defence, the onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did not kill the victim in self-defence. If this cannot be proven, the accuse must be found not guilty.
For a person to be found not guilty based on a defence of self-defence, the accused must have had a reasonable belief that their actions were necessary in self-defence. What it is reasonable to do in self-defence depends on the nature and extent of the threat faced.
Extreme provocation is a partial defence to murder. This means that if proven, it reduces the verdict of murder to the alternative verdict of manslaughter.
A person can argue extreme provocation as a partial defence to murder if:
- they acted in response to the victim’s conduct;
- the victim’s conduct was a serious indictable offence;
- the victim’s conduct caused the accused to lose self-control;
- the victim’s conduct was such that it could have caused an ordinary person to lose self-cotnrol to the point of intended to kill or cause serious harm to the victim.
A non-violent sexual advance is not extreme provocation.
Section 18 of the Crimes Act provides that a person is not guilty of murder if they had a lawful cause or excuse for their actions. An example of this may be where a surgeon carries out a surgical procedure that involves a serious injury (such as an amputation) and the patient dies.
Section 18 of the Crimes Act provides that a person is not guilty of murder if they kill a person by misfortune only.
Murder is a strictly indictable offence and must be finalised in the Supreme Court.
If you require legal advice or representation in any legal matter, please contact Armstrong Legal.
WHERE TO NEXT?
If you suspect that you may be under investigation, or if you have been charged with an offence, it is vital to get competent legal advice as early as possible. Our lawyers are highly specialised in criminal law and will be able to guide you through the process while dealing with the various authorities related to your matter.
WHY CHOOSE ARMSTRONG LEGAL?
201 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000
575 Bourke Street
Melbourne VIC 3000
231 North Quay
Brisbane QLD 4000
1 Farrell Place
Canberra ACT 2601
111 St Georges Terrace
Perth WA 6000