LEGAL PROBLEM ADVICE ASSIGNMENT
INSTRUCTIONS
Set out below is a hypothetical problem that raises a number of issues for applying the rules of criminal liability.
You are only required to deal with the law covered in the topics for Classes 2A (Crime, Punishment and Prosecution) to 5B (Criminal Law Problem-Solving) inclusive. Do not consider any other law from the syllabus, regardless of its relevance. Do not consider constructive murder or any complete defences. Reference to any offence or defence not covered within topics 2A-5B will be disregarded in the assessment of your assignment.
The word limit for this assignment is 2,500 words (inclusive of discursive commentary in footnotes and headings). Simple citation footnotes (i.e. references) are not included in the word count. You should avoid using footnotes for explanations, commentary, or quotes from primary sources; however, if you do include substantive text of this nature in footnotes, it is to be included in the word count. The Faculty’s standard 10% leeway policy applies to this assignment. Students will incur a 5% penalty for every 100 words, or part thereof, over the maximum word limit of 2,750 words. This means you will incur a 5% penalty at 2,751 words, and a 10% penalty at 2,851 words.
In your answer, you must correctly cite applicable case law and legislative provisions as authorities. You should also cite in full any sources upon which you rely, including textbooks, journal articles and web-based sources. You should avoid reference to these secondary sources where there is a primary source available. The assignment must be written individually, in your own words, and you should not replicate text from answer guides from previous years, or from the work of any other student, as this may amount to plagiarism, collusion or other academic misconduct. All citations should be in footnotes and must conform to the style set out in the Australian Guide to Legal Citation (4th ed). Papers should also accord with the Law Faculty’s Guide to Written Communication. Do not include a bibliography or reference list.
This assessment is worth 40 marks. Papers will be assessed in accordance with the criteria set out in the Subject Outline. Assignments are due by 6pm on Friday, 11 September 2020. You must submit your assignment in electronic form via Turnitin on UTSOnline. The assignment must be submitted with the Faculty’s online cover sheet (available on UTSOnline via the Course Information tab). Your electronic copy must be a Word.doc or compatible word processing format. You should note the other requirements for submission, as well as the Faculty’s policies on extensions and penalties for late submission. These are set out in the Faculty’s Subject Information Booklet. It is your responsibility to ensure that your assignment has been uploaded onto Turnitin by the due time and date. To avoid any technical issues that may arise, it is advised that students submit the assignment before the due time and date. Submissions not received on time, and without an extension, will receive a 0.
Chase and his friend Allison are the founding members of a ‘

Scenario Background
Chase and his friend Allison are the founding members of a ‘hacktivist’ group, SydAnon, based in Sydney. The pair met while studying computer science at UTS and during their degree formed the group. Originally, SydAnon was formed as an informal student group, where students could practice their hacking ability through university and government sponsored activities (such as ‘Capture the Flag’ scenarios). Later, the group evolved to also involve supporting members to hack for political purposes, modelling and aligning themselves with the broader Anonymous movement.
The group has been working with a new type of malware named Mirai. Contrary to most forms of malware that target personal computers and smartphones, Mirai targets Internet-of-Things devices; such as printers, webcams, light bulbs etc. Increasingly, the same technology has been incorporated into new models of medical equipment. This equipment is produced with no (or very little) security protection: pacemakers, medicine pumps, and other monitoring technologies. But, these new medical devices are popular with doctors and patients: when implemented well they increase patient control, reliability and access to effective healthcare. As such, some hospitals in Sydney have fully embraced these new forms of health technology.
Problem Question
Chase and Allison both work in cybersecurity in Sydney. Chase heads a team at a large consulting firm, and Allison works as the Chief Security Officer for a large department store. As their offices are both located in the CBD, Chase and Allison would often meet up for after work drinks to strategise the next steps for SydAnon, although they had been meeting less frequently lately. On this occasion, the pair had made a plan to meet up at a bar near Allison’s office on the evening of Friday 7 August 2020.
On that evening, while Allison was approaching the bar after making the short walk from her office, a car abruptly sped out of a car park and collided into Allison. The impact forced her forward into the road. The car did not stop but instead fled the scene. The force of the impact knocked Allison unconscious, and she sustained serious and life-threatening injuries. A passer-by called an ambulance which arrived just as Chase was walking to the bar. Distraught and panicked, Chase rode with Allison in the ambulance to the Hospital. Allison was treated promptly, and Chase waited with her until she regained consciousness in the early hours of the morning. She would need to stay in the ICU for a few days until she had suitably recovered. Chase was shocked by watching his friend be injured in such a serious and callous way.
Very early on Saturday morning Chase was told by hospital staff to leave to give Allison a chance to rest because ‘there was nothing he could do but wait’ and to get some rest himself. Upon being told this Chase, irritated and concerned, left the hospital and raced home. Chase headed straight for his laptop. He remembered seeing a bedside patient monitoring device next to Allison’s bed in ICU, which displayed her blood pressure and heart rate on a large screen that also allowed doctors to access to digital copies of her health files. Having been excluded from the hospital, Chase decided to see if he could hack into the patient monitor to display a message to Allison so she would know he was thinking of her and wishing her well. Drawing on his earlier success with the Mirai malware, Chase set to work modifying the code to make it suitable for infecting the bedside monitor, and he was careful to ensure it would only have an effect on Allison’s monitor.

By that evening Chase had found a way into the hospital’s IT system. Chase got into his car and drove to the hospital. Once there he took a seat in the entrance foyer. He connected to the publicly available WiFi, and, with a bit of skill, managed to obtain access into the hospital’s core network. He released the malware, which he believed he had successfully coded to seek out and infect only the monitor in Allison’s room. He waited 10 minutes and then made his way up to visit Allison, where he was relieved to find her awake and smiling while looking at the screen of the monitor next to her bed which now brightly displayed the SydAnon logo and the message ‘get hacking soon!’.
While Chase and Allison were chatting, the pair heard a commotion coming from the hallway. Chase stepped out of the room to investigate and observed doctors and nurses running from room to room in a panic. Unfortunately, Chase’s malware had continued to spread beyond just Allison’s bedside monitor and had infected a number of other devices as it made its way through the hospital’s network. Coincidently, the medicine pumps used in the hospital use a similar software protocol to communicate and display their operation reports and dosage rates on the screens in the nurse’s station at the entrance to the ward. The modified Mirai malware had disrupted this process and overridden the control functions on each pump. As the nurses and doctors speedily worked through the ward to disconnect the pumps from their patients, one patient, Eric, an elderly patient recovering from cardiac surgery to implant an artificial heart valve, received an overdose of an experimental liquid blood thinner.
Around an hour later, Eric, while sitting up in bed, slipped over and reopened a loose stitch inside his chest. He began bleeding internally. When he noticed severe skin discolouration due to the bleeding he notified a nurse, but in the chaos of returning hospital operation back to normal following the malware incident, the nurse was unable to follow up immediately. Eric died soon after from his internal bleeding without receiving any further treatment.
Consider Chase’s liability for murder and manslaughter in relation to the Eric’s death.
General Advice:
In addressing this question you should:
• • Consider and apply all elements for a possible charge of murder to the facts above, including each possible mens rea state. Do not consider constructive murder.
• • Consider if Chase has any grounds to raise a partial defence to reduce a possible conviction of murder to manslaughter. If yes, apply the partial defence to the facts. If not, state why the partial defence is not available.
• • Identity one suitable alternative charge for manslaughter that you consider is the most appropriate on the facts and apply all elements of that offence to the facts above.

Note: This problem question involves assessing your ability to apply the core principles of homicide offences to this hypothetical fact scenario. There is no need to do additional research into any issues relating to the use of technology. Rely only on the facts as stated above. It may also be useful to note that the act of deploying malware could otherwise constitute an offence under Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 308H and/or s 308D.hypothetical problem that raises a number of issues for applying the rules of criminal liability.