Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Law study > Actus Reus + Mens Rea > Flashcards

Actus Reus + Mens Rea Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
1
Q

R v Dytham

A

Public Officer can’t wilfully and without reasonable excuse, neglect their duty.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

DPP v Bartlay

A

Public Officer can’t wilfully and without reasonable excuse, neglect their duty.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

R v Evans (Gemma)

A

Sister Created dangerous situation by supplying drugs and didnt call for ambulance. If they reasonably should have known that conduct would become life threatening, they have a duty to take reasonable steps to save others.
No duty of care for siblings ordinarily

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

R v Gibbins and Proctor

A

Parent Child relationship. Starved child case

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

R v Chattaway

A

Parent Child relationship. Starved 25 year old reliant on parents case

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

R v Shepherd

A

V died in childbirth. Over 18. No legal duty for parent.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

R v Bonnyman

A

Trained doctor didnt seek help for addict wife. Spouse/ Partner case.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

R v Hood

A

Sole carer for wife. Fell down steps and didnt call for help for 3 weeks

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

R v smith (1979)

A

D didnt seek help for wife until she lost consciousness. SHe had refused medical care. Case dismissed. Capacity is important. If they dont appear too ill it is reasonable to listen to V.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

R v Smith (1826)

A

Brother incapable of looking after himself. No duty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

R v Instan

A

D lived with ill and sick aunt. D showed no interest in providing care whatsoever. DUty assumed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

R v Stone and Dobinson

A

Stones sister moved in with them. Even though siblings dont ordinarily have duty of care. The fact that she was living under same roof was a factor. Duty adopted

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

DPP v Joel & anor

A

HSE failed. Institutional failing may release D of Duty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Re B

A

Consent to Treatment: Patient autonomy of mentally competent person should be respected.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Brown v Pittwood

A

D failed to close gate at railway line. COntractual duty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

R v Stingh

A

Maintenance Person had duty to maintain flat. Carbon monoxide

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner

A

Car on cops foot case, When he realised he was on his foot and didnt move, that gave him mens rea. Course of conduct or continuing action

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Airedale NHS Trust v Bland

A

No duty to treat if not in best interest of patient. Withdrawn = Omission and not an act.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

R v Larsonnear

A

Doesnt matter how french national got to england. and if they didnt want to be there

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent, The Times

A

Doesnt matter how drunk man came to be in public space

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Martin V state of alabama

A

Drunk had to be voluntarily on street

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

R v Robinson-Pierre

A

Pitbull case. Difference between strict liability and situational liability. Must be causal link

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

R v Deller

A

Mens rea without actus reus isnt an offence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

R v Jakeman

A

Attempted drug smuggler case. STate of mind at time of relevant act is what matters.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

R v Miller

A

FIre mattress case. Creating dangerous situation. Duty to minimise harm

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Thabe and Meli v R

A

Intended to beat v to death. V didnt die from this. Unaware of this, they threw him off a cliff. These two acts worked as one continuous act

27
Q

R v Church

A

No plan needed. Knocked V unconscious. Thought he killed her. Threw her in river and she drowned

28
Q

R v Le Brun

A

Transaction Principle. Knocked V unconscious. WHile moving her, accidentally dropped and killed her Tainted by original purpose, same sequence of events

29
Q

R v White

A

Poison and heart attack case. Heart attack was actual cause of death. Poison was only small dose. Novus actus interveniens.

30
Q

R v Dalloway

A

Responsibility only arises where jury finds driver negligent in ROad Traffic Accident.

31
Q

R V adams

A

Doctor eased passing of elderly patients with morphine. If medicine cant restore health, doctor can relieve pain, even if it shortens life.

32
Q

DPP v Daly

A

Assault must contribute in substantial or significant way to death

33
Q

DPP v Davis

A

Assault then fall down stairs. Assault contributed in more than minimal way.

34
Q

DPP v Murphy

A

D argued semen didnt establish causation of death. Abundant evidence from which virtually irresistible interference can be drawn

35
Q

R v Benge

A

Foreman train case. Novus actus interveniens of third party. Free deliberate and infrormed. Must contribute to result

36
Q

R v Pagett

A

Human Shield case. Reasonably foreseeable that firing at cops would cause them to fire back in self defence.

37
Q

R v Smith (1959)

A

Soldier stabbed. Negligent medical treatment. Injury from D is operating and substantial cause.

38
Q

R v Cheshire

A

Vs wounds from Ds attack no longer life threatening. Neglugent treatment. Still convicted.

39
Q

R v Jordan

A

Vs wounds largely healed up. Terrible medical treatment. Treatment must be palpably wrong to break chain

40
Q

R v Malcherek

A

Withdrawing life support because of irreparable brain damage. DOesnt break chain

41
Q

R v steele

A

Withdrawing life support because of irreparable brain damage. DOesnt break chain

42
Q

In re ward of court

A

True cause wasnt the withdrawel of life support, but the injuries sustained.

43
Q

Dunne v DPP

A

D Shot friend with pneumonia after 2 years in vegetative state. Argument that this was withdrawal of medical aid was rejected.

44
Q

R v Longbottom

A

Killed pedestrian who was negligent. Still Liable

45
Q

AG v gallagher

A

Negligent Motorcyclist killed by D, still liable

46
Q

R v Martin

A

Egg shell skull rule

47
Q

R v Blau

A

Egg shell skull rule. Jehovahs witness.

48
Q

R v Roberts

A

D made sexual advances on V and she jumps out of car to escape. Reasonably foreseeable in the circumstance

49
Q

R v Williams and Davies

A

Two Ds threatened hitchhiker in car. Hitchhiker jumps out. Not reasonably foreseeable. Improportionate response.

50
Q

R v Flynn

A

D hit V over head. carrys on with life and dies days later. Not a novus actus interveniens

51
Q

R v Holland

A

D cuts Vs finger. V refused to get it amputated and died. D cant escape liability

52
Q

R v Dear

A

V commits suicide by openning wounds that d gave him. Wounds are significant and operating cause,

53
Q

R v Dhaliwal

A

w/o recognised psychiatric injury. Assault that leads V to suicide doesnt render d liable

54
Q

R v Wallace

A

Acid Attack case. EUthanised in Belgium. Is it reasonably foreseeable that someone would commit suicide as a result of injury.

55
Q

R v Kennedy (No.2)

A

Supply of drugs. V self administers drugs voluntarily. D not liable

56
Q

DPP v Murray

A

Direct intention definition. + Test for subjective recklessness in ireland. Consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable .risk must be extreme,

57
Q

DPP v Douglas & Hayes

A

Oblique intention def: D acting for one purpose and brings about another

58
Q

DPP v FN

A

Bomb on plane scenario. Oblique intention only really for murder cases

59
Q

Cliffford v DPP

A

More obscure the consequence, the less lukely inference of intention can be made

60
Q

DPP v Foley

A

Knowledge is positive and correct beliefe that circumstances of offence existed

61
Q

R v Lamb

A

Accidentally shot friend case. No idea how gun worked. No mens rea.

62
Q

Brown v US

A

Take into account emergency or stress

63
Q

DPP v Healy

A

Breathalyzer. If mistake of law was allowed. It would put a premium on ignorance.

Law study (6 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions