The recent Australian bushfires have become more tragic when it is now known that some of the more serious conflagrations were deliberately lit.
This knowledge has been met by outrage and cries of "String him up" and "Let him burn to death".
It is interesting to analyse what crime has been committed and to look at the five ways under our law in which murder can be committed.
If no deaths occurred, the only crime available is one of arson, under section 267 of our Crimes Act 1961.
That crime is punishable by up to 14 years' imprisonment and needs no explanation.
It requires proof of intention or recklessness.
The test of recklessness is interesting because it involves something less than actual intent but considerably more than carelessness or inattentiveness.
But if deaths occurred, charges of murder may be able to be laid in certain circumstances.
There are five ways under our law that murder can be committed and they are all set forth in sections 167 and 168.
The first definition of murder applies when the offender actually means to cause the death of a person killed.
That is stating the obvious.
The intention can be proven by a confession, or an eyewitness describing a clearly intentional act, or proven from reasonable inferences drawn from established facts.
The second definition allows for a conviction for murder where the offender meant to cause only bodily injury but which he knows is likely to cause death and is reckless whether death ensues or not.
This would cover the case of the person who discharges a shotgun at close range to the groin of another person.
They might never have meant to cause death but such an act would surely be caught by the second definition.
It involved intent to cause bodily injury, which simply must be known to be likely to cause death even though that was not the intention.
It's murder all the same.
The third definition covers the situation where the offender is in the same position as either of the above two fact situations in relation to one person but, by accident or mistake, kills another person.
In other words, you mean to shoot your wife but you miss her and kill your mother-in-law by accident.
Well, you're well and truly caught by this third definition.
No use pleading "I didn't mean to. It was an accident".
You're guilty of murder.
You mean to kill A, but you kill B by mistake. Tough. Murder.
The fourth definition occurs where the offender acts in a way that he knows to be likely to cause death even though he may have desired that no-one would die.
This would cover the situation of the idiot who placed explosives against a dance hall door "only to frighten people inside", but where deaths actually occurred.
He could not expect to be dealt with only on a lesser charge of manslaughter. He might be believed that he did not intend to kill anyone but this definition takes him straight to a murder conviction.
The fifth definition of murder covers death resulting from high-level crimes in certain circumstances.
If an offender means to cause grievous bodily harm while committing one of the serious crimes below, or for the purposes of escaping the crime or avoiding detection, or if he or she administers any stupefying or overpowering thing and a death occurs, then that is murder, not the lesser charge of manslaughter.
It must be noted that it is not relevant whether the offender means or does not mean death to ensue, or knows or does not know that death is likely to ensue.
The only intent necessary is grievous bodily harm, not death.
The serious crimes are treason, sabotage, piracy, escaping from lawful custody or detention, sexual violation, abduction, kidnapping, burglary, robbery and arson.
All of the above definitions filter down to situations which might occur in a flash during lesser crimes than murder.
To be sure, intent to cause grievous bodily harm is a serious test but it is still a lesser test than murder. But the result for the offender is a conviction for murder, not manslaughter, and therefore inevitably life imprisonment.
Back to the bushfires.
Any unlawful act leading to a death is manslaughter. Consequently, an arsonist whose act results in death is clearly guilty of manslaughter.
Manslaughter can still attract a sentence of life imprisonment and, in the case of the Australian bushfires, such a sentence would be seriously considered by a sentencing judge.
But could the arsonist be found guilty of murder? Obviously, if the intent to kill was present then that would be so. Similarly, if there was an intent to cause a bodily injury to a person or persons, even unknown to the arsonist, then that would be murder under the second definition above.
Lighting a bushfire in dangerous conditions close to inhabited houses carries with it the clear inference that bodily injury was intended and the second element of recklessness is also obviously present. So maybe murder is a runner.
A good defence lawyer would argue that, while arson in these circumstances is serious enough, the question of intention to cause bodily injury to innocent citizens falls short on the evidence.
This will be an issue for an Australian jury to decide.
But the issues are interesting because culpability for murder does not solely rest on an intention to kill a particular person.
Criminal acts short of that specific content will suffice.
• Michael Guest is a former lawyer and District and Family Court judge.