Causation Flashcards
Hendry v HMA 1987
The older man was assaulted (drunk, heavy meal etc, stairs). Then he got heart attack and he died. The accused was charged with culpable homicide. The appeal was refused as the medical evidence was enough to establish causal link between attack and death.
Lourie v HMA 1988
The accused were charge with culpable homicide, as the went uninvited and stole the bag in the presence of victim, in consequence she suffered heart attack. The court quashed the conviction as there were not sufficient evidence that she observed the theft.
R v Blaue 1975
The woman was assaulted with knife (lungs). She needed a transfusion and operation. She did not agreed for a transfusion - religious beliefs. Hence she died. The accused was charged with murder. Convicted on manslaughter based on diminished responsibility. Appeal refused as the victim do not have a duty to mitigate her injuries and injury from stabbing by knife was substantial.
Joseph & Mary Norris 1866
The man took off the bandages. The infection get to the injury and he did. The man would be guilty however the conduct of the victim was unreasonable. Therefore his guilt not proven.
Khaliq v HMA 1984
The men were supplying children with solvents for different fants/ pledges. The argued that it was not in boarder of known Scottish crime. They were held guilty. if conduct fell within an existing category which was criminal then a novel way of committing the actus reus would lead to conviction
Patrick Slaven 1885
The panel was charged with assault with intent to ravish and culpable homicide. They assaulted a woman who then escape. She chased by them. During escaping she fell from precipice and died.
R v Roberts 1972
The woman jumped from the car as she claimed she was afraid that the man will do something to her. Then she ran to the nearest house and call the police.Whether that conduct was reasonably foreseeable as the consequence of what he was saying and doing. ‘Daft’ complainer.
James Williamson 1866
The accused argued that the injuries were fatal because of bad medical treatment.Principle: Generally he who administers a blow must ‘stand the peril of the consequences of his act’; guilty.
Finlayson v HMA 1979
The man injected recklessly the control drug to the victim. This caused brain damage. The victim was on support life machine. The doctors and parents of the victim decided to turn off the machine. The accused argued that this was the actus interveniens - on appeal. The appeal was refused - Once initial reckless act was committed.(the rest natural consequences which should be accepted by the perpetrator).
