Cases

Question 1

Precedent from Woolmington v DPP:

Answer 1

Crime must be Proved ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’.

Question 2

D puts poison in victims drink. Victim suffers unrelated heart attack and dies.

Answer 2

R v White: Gives us the ‘But For’ test. where the defendants actions must cause the prohibitive act

Question 3

D’s girlfriend died when he used her as a human shield during a shootout. (2 rules)

Answer 3

R v Pagett: Legal causation requires the D’s actions to be the ‘operating and substantial act’. Acts of a third party will only break chain of causation if they act voluntarily in a ‘free, deliberate and informed’ manner.

Question 4

Following gun shot wound, man gets bad tracheotomy, dies.( 2 rules)

Answer 4

R v Cheshire: Defendant must be Operating and Substantial cause of prohibited act. Bad medical treatment will only break chain of causation if they’re so independent of D’s act and so potent they render D’s actions insignificant.

Question 5

Word defined by R v Kimsey and; R v Cato.

Answer 5

Substantial cause means ‘more than slight or trifling’

Question 6

A boy was hit by a stage coach while the driver was not holding the reigns

Answer 6

The Consequence must be caused by the culpable act. You need to prove the outcome occurred because of what the defendant did. R v Dalloway.

Question 7

railway foreman sends a signalman down the track with a red flag..

Answer 7

The defendants act need not be the only cause of the prohibitive consquence. You only need to be the operating and Substantial Cause. R vBenge

Question 8

Stab victim dropped twice on the way to medical station, where he received “inappropriate and positively harmful” treatment and dies.

Answer 8

R v Smith: Causation, medical negligence rarely breaks the chain of causation.

Question 9

Explain the ‘thin skull rule’ and where the legal authority lies:

Answer 9

R v Hayward: You must take your victim as you find them. A person who inflicts harm on another cannot escape liability if a victim suffers greater harm than would have been expected due to some pre-existing peculiarity or infirmity.

Question 10

Williams and Davis deals with:

Answer 10

Acts of the Victim ‘Fright and Flight’. Break in causeation. Response of victim must be “within the range of responses which might be expected from a victim placed in the situation in which he was” this includes consideration of characteristics of the victim and that in the “agony of the moment he may act without thought and deliberation”

Question 11

R v Roberts: Facts and Rule?

Answer 11

Victim jumps out of moving car following unwanted sexual advances from D. Causation, break of causation by victims acts. doesn’t need to be a reasonable act, but a reasonably foreseeable reaction. i.e it is reasonably forceable that a victim may act irrationally.

Question 12

R v Blaue.

Answer 12

Acts of the Victim,Break in chain of Causation. Refusal of medical treatment. “Take the person as you find them” The D’s Acts caused the prohibited outcome not the victims refusal to stop that end coming about.

Question 13

Which case deals with a Victims suicide breaking the chain of causation…Why might you wish to distinguish this from other cases of this kind?

Answer 13

R v Dear. Distinguish because victim died after reopening wounds caused by D. Strong claim if V commits suicide in incident unrelated to attack.

Question 14

R v Cato defines which word when looking for legal causation?

Answer 14

‘Substantial’ that substantial does not mean ‘really serious’ but not a ‘de minimis or trifling’ one

Question 15

3 year old boy runs away and falls down stairs believing D is going to assault him.

Answer 15

R v Mackie: Victims reasonably foreseeable act does not break chain of causation.

Question 16

D attacks victim and amongst other wounds inflicts severely cut finger: Victim dies after contracting tetanus.

Answer 16

R v Holland: Acts of the victim, refusal of medical treatment. Doesn’t break chain of causation.

Question 17

On duty Police officer fails to intervene, man beaten to death.

Answer 17

R v Dytham: Omissions, Public office holders have a duty to act.

Question 18

D’s old, weak and anorexic sister dies due to poor care.

Answer 18

R v Stone and Dobinson: Omissions, voluntary assumption of care: V was sister, had previously asked for assistance, had fed and offered V food…

Question 19

Man fails to close railway gate, goes on break and train de-rails

Answer 19

R v Pitwood, Omissions: contractual duty creates liability

Question 20

D Lights a cigeratte, falls alseep. wakes up to burning matress..leaves.

Answer 20

Omissions: Creating a dangerous situation gives you a duty to avert further harm. R v Miller

Question 21

The chain of causation is broken by a V’s voluntary and informed act in which case and how?

Answer 21

R v Kennedy: D supplies but does not cause that drug to be administered to another who injects himself with it and dies.

Question 22

Young Nelly is deliberately starved to death.

Answer 22

R v Gibbons and Proctor, Omissions: duty to act because of special relationship (parental duty). Gibbons because he was Nelly’s father, Proctor because she had assumed voluntary care of the child.

Question 23

D’s wife dies as a result of broken bones suffered in a fall. D fails to summon medical assistance to help her.

Answer 23

Ommisons: Special relationship, marital status creates duty to act. R v Hood

Question 24

Aunt gives D money to provide them with food. Instead D uses money to buy himself food and ignores Aunt now suffering with gangrene..

Answer 24

Omissions: Voluntary assumption of care..because of the money or because of the family relationship?

Question 25

V becomes unconscious after taking drugs with D at D’s house. D agrees to look after V, but D instead goes back to bed and leaves him outside.

Answer 25

R v Ruffell: Ommisons, voluntary assumption of duty. V was D’s Friend, in D’s house, D had attempted to revive V.