Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

*ANEW-L-Actus Reus > Causation > Flashcards

Causation Flashcards

1
Q

What 3 things must the prosecution show?

A
  • D’s conduct was the factual cause of that consequence
  • it was the legal cause of the consequence
  • there was no intervening acts which broke the chain of causation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

The defendant can only be guilty if the consequence would not have happened ‘___ ___’ the defendants conduct.

A

but for

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

Which case can the but for test be seen in operation?

A

Pagett 1983

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

What happened in the case of Pagett 1983?

A

D used pregnant girlfriend as human shield against police fire. V died. D was convicted of manslaughter

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

Why was Pagett 1983 guilty of manslaughter under the but for test?

A

because the girl would not have died but for him using her as a shield in the shoot-out

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

What case is the opposite to Pagett 1983?

A

White 1910

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

What happened in the case of White 1910?

A

D put cyanide in mothers drink intending to kill her. Mother died of a heart attack before she could drink it. D was not factual cause of dear, Guilty of attempted murder.

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

D put cyanide in mothers drink intending to kill her. Mother died of a heart attack before she could drink it. D was not factual cause of dear, Guilty of attempted murder.
What case is this?

A

White 1910

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

D used pregnant girlfriend as human shield against police fire. V died. D was convicted of manslaughter
What case is this?

A

Pagget 1983

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

What is the rule under legal causation?

A

the rule is that D can be guilty if his conduct was more than a ‘minimal’ cause of the consequence, but need not be a substantial cause.

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

In some cases under legal causation what have some stated that the conduct of D must be more than?

A

more than de minimis’

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

In Kimsey 1996 what did the COA say to the jury rather than ‘de minimis’?

A

that the act must be ‘more than a slight or trifling link’

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

What happened in the case of Kimsey 1996?

A

D was involved in car chase and the other driver died. D’s actions were a substantial cause of death. COA upheld conviction.

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

What is the thin skull rule?

A

If the victim has something unusual about his physical or mental state which makes an injury more serious, then the defendant is liable for the more serious injury

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

What is an example of the thin skull rule?

A

if the victim has an unusually thick skull which means that a blow to the head gives him a serious injury then the defendant is liable for that injury. Even if the blow would only have caused bruising in a ‘normal’ person.

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

What happened in the case of Blaue 1975?

A

V, a Jehovahs witness, was stabbed by D and needed a blood transfusion. Her beliefs forbade this. V died. D was convicted of her murder

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

V, a Jehovahs witness, was stabbed by D and needed a blood transfusion. Her beliefs forbade this. V died. D was convicted of her murder
What case was this?

A

Blaue 1975

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

What is the chain of causation?

A

this is the direct link from the defendants conduct to the consequence.

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

What may break the chain of causation?

A

if something else happens after the defendants act or omission and if this is sufficient enough to be an intervening act

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

What is an example of a break in the chain of causation?

A

for example, D stabbed V. V taken to hospital. Ambulance carrying V crashes, V suffers from fatal head injuries.

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

How does the but for test create a problem from the intervening acts?

A

as arguably ‘but for’ the defendant the victim would not have been in that position in the first place for there to be an intervening act.

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

What 3 things can break the chain of causation?

A
  • an act of a third party
  • a victims own act
  • a natural but unpredictable event
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

In order to break the chain of causation what must the intervening act be?

A

it must be so sufficiently independent of D’s conduct and sufficiently serious

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

When may a defendant still be seen to have caused the actions of a third party?

A

if the third parties actions were foreseeable

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

Where the defendants conduct causes a foreseeable action by a third party then the defendant is likely to be held to have caused that consequence.
Which case was this principle applied to?

A

Pagett 1983

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

What is unlikely to break the chain of causation?

A

medical treatment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Although medical treatment is unlikely to break the chain of causation, how can it?

A

if it is so independent of the defendants acts and ‘in itself so potent in causing death’ that the defendants acts are insignificant.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Which 4 cases are used under Medical treatment ?

A
  • Smith 1959
  • Cheshire-1991
  • Jordan 1956
  • Malcherek 1981
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

What happened in the case of Smith 1959?

A

2 soldiers had a fight, D stabbed V. V was dropped on the way to medical centre, there staff made injury worse in attempt to resuscitate him and V died. D was convicted of his murder.

30
Q

2 soldiers had a fight, D stabbed V. V was dropped on the way to medical centre, there staff made injury worse in attempt to resuscitate him and V died. D was convicted of his murder.
What case is this?

A

Smith 1959

31
Q

By what % did the staff in Smith 1959 reduce the chance of recovery by?

A

75%

32
Q

Why was D still found guilty of murder in Smith 1959 even though the staff reduced chances of recovery by 75%?

A

As V’s wounds were still a ‘substantial’ and ‘operating’ cause of death.

33
Q

What happened in the case of Cheshire 1991?

A

D shot V. V developed breathing problems in hospital. The apparatus used to treat V caused rare complications and V died. D was still held to be liable for V’s death.

34
Q

D shot V. V developed breathing problems in hospital. The apparatus used to treat V caused rare complications and V died. D was still held to be liable for V’s death.
What case is this?

A

Cheshire 1991

35
Q

What did the COA say in justifying their decision in Cheshire 1991?

A

Even though treatment for the injures was short of the standard expected of a competent medical practitioner D’ acts need not be the sole cause or even the main cause as long as his acts contributed significantly to the death

36
Q

What happened in the case of Jordan 1956?

A

V was stabbed. Doctor gave him an antibiotic he was allergic to, but was stopped. Next day another doctor ordered a large dose of it to be given. V died of allergic reaction. Actions of the doctor was an intervening act. D not guilty of murder.

37
Q

V was stabbed. Doctor gave him an antibiotic he was allergic to, but was stopped. Next day another doctor ordered a large dose of it to be given. V died of allergic reaction. Actions of the doctor was an intervening act.
What case is this?

A

Jordan 1956

38
Q

Which judge in the case of Cheshire 1991 said that regardless of negligence in medical treatment, the acts were not so independent or potent in causing death.

A

Lord Beldam LJ

39
Q

In what instance would the doctor in Jordan 1956 not have created a break in the chain of causation?

A

if the antibiotic was administered in a normal dose as a part of an emergency treatment and the doctors are unaware of the allergic reaction

40
Q

What happened in the case of Malcherek 1981?

A

D stabbed V. V put on life support machine. D charged with murder. COA upheld conviction

41
Q

D stabbed V. V put on life support machine. D charged with murder. COA upheld conviction
What case is this?

A

Malcherek 1981

42
Q

Explain a victims own act which can be an intervening act?

A

If the defendant causes the victim to react in a foreseeable way, then any injury to the victim will be considered to have been caused by the defendant

43
Q

What 2 cases are examples of how a Victims own act may be an intervening factor?

A
  • Roberts 1971

- Majoram 2000

44
Q

What happened in the case of Roberts 1971?

A

D tried to rape V. V jumped from car and died. D was held to be liable for injuries.

45
Q

D tried to rape V. V jumped from car and died. D was held to be liable for injuries.
what case is this?

A

Roberts 1971

46
Q

Ds shouted and kicked V doors down. V fell from window of room and suffered serious injuries. Ds were convicted for inflicting GBH. Upheld by COA
What case is this?

A

Marjoram 2000

47
Q

What happened in the case of Marjoram 2000?

A

Ds shouted and kicked V doors down. V fell from window of room and suffered serious injuries. Ds were convicted for inflicting GBH. Upheld by COA

48
Q

What does ‘unreasonable reaction’ mean without a Victims Own Act?

A

this is when the victims reaction is unreasonable and this may break the chain of causation

49
Q

What case is an example of when a victims act was unreasonable?

A

Williams and Davis 1992

50
Q

What happened in Williams and David 1992?

A

D tried to rob V. V jumped from car and suffered head injuries. COA said victims act was not in proportion to the threat.

51
Q

What test is used to test if a Victims Own Act was reasonable?

A

daftness test

52
Q

What does novcus actus interveniens mean?

A

a new intervening act

53
Q

If a victim acts unreasonably what is this called and what does this lead to?

A

the victim amounted to a novcus actus interveniens which would break the chain of causation.

54
Q

What is the major problem in the law on causation?

A

what is meant by more than a ‘slight and trifling link’ as it is vague and difficult to define

55
Q

What could be the problem of the vague and difficulty of understanding what is meant by more than a ‘slight and trifling link’?

A

juries may apply different standards in different cases

56
Q

What is a question about ‘taking your victim as you find him’?

A

If V has a medical condition is it fair that this makes the injury more serious even if D did not intend this?

57
Q

When might it have been justified for victims to refuse medical treatment and why?

A

could be justified when medical treatment was very primitive especially without anaesthetic.

58
Q

What happened in the case of Holland 1841?

A

D deliberately cut V’s finger. Cut became infected, V advised to have finger amputated. V refused and died from infection. D was liable for death

59
Q

D deliberately cut V’s finger. Cut became infected, V advised to have finger amputated. V refused and died from infection. D was liable for death
What case is this?

A

Holland 1841

60
Q

Why might it have been fair for V to refuse treatment in Holland 1841?

A

as surgery at this time was very primitive

61
Q

What could D in Blaue 1975 have been charged with if not for murder?

A

wounding with intent s18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1961

62
Q

What is the maximum penalty of wounding with intent s18 Offences Against the Person Act 1961, which the D in Blaue 1975 could have been charged with if not for murder?

A

life imprisonment

63
Q

What is the argument for imposing a charge of wounding with intent under s18 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1961 in regards to Blaue 1975?

A

the maximum sentence is life imprisonment so a suitable punishment could have been imposed

64
Q

What happened in the case of Dear 1996?

A

D slashed V severing an artery. V did not attend to wounds and possibly opened them up further. V died from blood loss. D’s conviction for murder upheld by COA.

65
Q

D slashed V severing an artery. V did not attend to wounds and possibly opened them up further. V died from blood loss. D’s conviction for murder upheld by COA.
What case is this?

A

Dear 1996

66
Q

What was D found guilty for murder in Dear 1996?

A

as the wounds were an operating and significant cause of death

67
Q

What is a question for Dear 1996?

A

If V had opened up wounds further, would this be an intervening act?

68
Q

What was the test used in Smith 1959?

A

‘operating and substantial cause’

69
Q

Why might the test used in Smith 1959 (‘operating and substantial cause’) not have lead to a conviction in Cheshire 1991?

A

as in Cheshire the wounds had virtually healed, and probably not a substantial cause of death

70
Q

What happened in the case of Bristow, Dunn and Delay 2012? Victims own act case

A

An owner of a motor repair business in a remote farm building tried to stop robbers and was run over and killed by them.
His own act was found to not have interfered with causation. Ds killed under joint enterprise of unlawful act manslaughter

*ANEW-L-Actus Reus (3 decks)

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