1. Murder

Question 0

R v Poulton

Answer 0

Child must be fully expelled from mother’s body and born alive

Question 1

R v White

Answer 1

Factual causation - causal link must be established between D’s act and V’s death

Question 2

R v Pagett

Answer 2

D’s act must be operating and substantial cause

Third-party actions will only break chain where these are ‘free, deliberate and informed’

Question 3

R v Dalloway

Answer 3

Death would have occurred even in absence of D’s culpable act (driving cart without holding reins) - no legal causation

Question 4

R v Benge

Answer 4

D convicted after negligence is substantial cause of train accident, even though other people were also at fault

Question 5

R v Cato

Answer 5

Substantial means not de minimis or trifling

Question 6

R v Smith

Answer 6

Courts reluctant to treat medical malpractice as novus actus

Question 7

R v Hayward

Answer 7

Thin skull rule

Question 8

R v Mackie

Answer 8

D convicted after three-year-old boy, believing D was about to assault him, ran away, fell down some stairs and died

Question 9

R v Holland

Answer 9

Refusal to have medical treatment does not break chain of causation

Question 10

R v Blaue

Answer 10

Refusal to have medical treatment on religious grounds does not break chain of causation

Question 11

R v Dear

Answer 11

Chain of causation not broken when wounds caused by D are opened up after V has received medical treatment in a possible act of suicide

Question 12

R v Vickers

Answer 12

Intention to commit GBH satisfies mens rea

Question 13

R v Saunders

Answer 13

GBH = ‘serious harm’

Question 14

R v Moloney

Answer 14

‘Intention’ should be given its ordinary meaning

Question 15

R v Woollin

Answer 15

Death/GBH must be a ‘virtual certainty’ resulting from D’s actions + D appreciated that this was the case

Question 16

Chandler v DPP

Answer 16

Fact Ds may have had ulterior motive in doing what they did does not change the intention

Question 17

Coroners and Justice Act 2009, s 54(1)

Answer 17

No conviction for murder if

(a) D’s act/omission resulted from loss of self-control
(b) Loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger
(c) Person of D’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or similar way to D

Question 18

CJA 2009, s 54(7)

Answer 18

Partial defence, reduced conviction to voluntary manslaughter

Question 19

CJA 2009, s 54(6)

Answer 19

Matter for judge to decide whether to put it to jury

Question 20

CJA 2009, s 54(5)

Answer 20

Burden is on prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt

Question 21

R v Richens

Answer 21

There need not be a total loss of control, such that D doesn’t know what he’s doing, but he must be unable to restrain himself

Question 22

CJA 2009, s 54(4)

Answer 22

Must not have been motivated by revenge

Question 23

CJA 2009, s 55(3)

Answer 23

Fear of serious violence

Question 24

CJA 2009, s 55(5)

Answer 24

Things said/done that constitutes circumstances of extremely grave nature and cause justifiable sense of being wronged

Question 25

R v Clinton

Answer 25

Where sexual infidelity is accompanied by taunts or other related issues, the sexual infidelity can be included as part of the qualifying trigger

Question 26

CJA 2009, s 54(1)(c)

Answer 26

‘A person of D’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint, and in circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to D’

Question 27

CJA 2009, s 54(3)

Answer 27

Not circumstances that bear on D’s general capacity for tolerance/self-restraint

Question 28

R v Ashmelash

Answer 28

D’s drink/drug problem could be treated as having a bearing on e.g. whether taunts about his addiction problems would cause a reasonable person with those characteristics (i.e. addiction) to react in same way

Question 29

Homicide Act 1957, s 2(1)

Answer 29

Diminished responsibility

Question 30

R v Byrne

Answer 30

Abnormality of mental functioning is a ‘state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal’

Question 31

HA 1957, s 2(1A)

Answer 31

1. To understand nature of D’s act
2. To form a rational judgement
3. To exercise self-control

Question 32

HA 1957, s 2(1B)

Answer 32

Abnormality of mental functioning provides explanation of D’s act

Question 33

R v Dietschmann

Answer 33

Where D not suffering from ADS, intoxication has to be discounted

Question 34

R v Tandy

Answer 34

If D in position to resist urge to drink but chooses to continue, defence was not available, even if there was evidence of ADS

Question 35

R v Wood

Answer 35

More flexible approach - q is whether ADS was significant factor leading D to consume alcohol

Question 36

R v Stewart

Answer 36

Extent and seriousness of D’s dependency
Extent to which D’s ability to control drinking was reduced
Whether he was capable of abstinence
Whether choosing to drink more for a particular reason, e.g. birthday

Question 37

R v Dowds

Answer 37

‘Acute Voluntary Intoxication’ is not a recognised medical condition and so could not give rise to the defence