Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

law a2 > Causation Actus Reus > Flashcards

Causation Actus Reus Flashcards

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

What is Actus Reus?

A

The doing part of the crime - the guilty act

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

What are the 3 physical parts of a crime?

A

Conduct, consequences and circumstances

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

If one of the actus reus elements cannot be proven against the D what happens?

A

They cannot be guilty under the offence

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

Give an example of when you would not be liable of murder if you killed someone…

A

During wartime, as it would not be under the Queen’s peace therefore you would not be liable

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

What are the 2 types of causation?

A

Factual causation - based on the facts

Legal causation - moral responsibility

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

Explain the case of Pagett 1983…

A

Human shield, robber running from police, pregnant girlfriend as shield, police shot, she died

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

What was the statement given during the Pagett case?

A

‘the accused act need not be the sole cause, or even the main cause of the death, it must be enough that his act contributed significantly to that result’

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

What is the but for test used in Pagett?

A

But for the actions of the defendant would the victim still be dead

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

When was a defendant found not guilty using the but for test?

A

White 1910 - poisoned mothers milk, later found it wasnt enough to kill her, she had heart attack that night and died (factual cause of death was heart attack)

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

What do you have to question during legal causation?

A

Whether the D can be fairly said to be at fault

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

What happened in Dalloway 1847?

A

D was driving a cart not holding reins child ran out and was killed. D charged with manslaughter but acquitted as even if he was holding the reins it still wouldn’t have prevented the child’s death

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

What case supports the decision made in Dalloway?

A

Marchant and Muntz 2004 - tractor driver and farmer driving round sharp bend, motorcyclist comes at 80mph, impaled by tractors spikes - not morally responsible even though legally so they were not charged

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

What is the word often used to show the D caused the …?

A

Substantial

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

What did the case of Kimsey 1996 state?

A

The actions of the D must be ‘more than a minimal contribution’ - 2 girls car chase, crashed into another car, they did not intend to kill but actions were more than a minimal contribution

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

What is the acceleration principle?

A

D’s act will be considered a cause if it has accelerated V’s death

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

What case illustrates the acceleration principle?

A

Adams 1957 - Doctor gave a lethal dose of painkillers to terminally ill patient and changed with murder

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

What does the HRA 1998 state about the acceleration principle?

A

It is not okay to accelerate someones death anymore - why we charge for assisted suicide

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

What are contributory causes?

A

The D’s act may not be the main or sole cause of death, other causes may be sufficient enough

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

State the 2 contributory causes…

A

Actions of third parties

Actions of V herself

20
Q

Give an example of an action of a third party letting the D off…

A

If D poisons V’s dinner but before she eats it an escaped lunatic stabs V to death - the D is no longer liable for the death (would probably be charged for attempted murder)

21
Q

What does the court state about the D avoiding liability?

A

It is only in extreme circumstances - normally the chain of causation cannot be broken

22
Q

What is the latin words for breaking the chain of causation?

A

Novus actus interveniens

23
Q

What type of causation do doctors commit?

A

Legal - but not moral as we do not normally charge doctors for murders as they are trying to help

24
Q

Which case did a doctor get charged for murder on the grounds of medical treatment?

A

Jordan 1956 - doctor gave him antibiotics he knew he was allergic too and he died. It was seen here that the doctors acts were ‘palpably wrong’ and therefore broke the chain of causation

25
Q

How does the case of Smith 1959 show that medical negligence does not normally break the chain of causation?

A

Soldiers in fight, Smith got stabbed, hospital didn’t give the right treatment - D charged with murder, he appealed but said that stab was the OPERATING CAUSE OF DEATH

26
Q

Explain the case of Cheshire 1991… (medical negligence)

A

D shot man in fish and chip shop, hospital gave tracheotomy, wounds healed but found problems with the T and this later caused his death. D appealed when charged with murder but the shooting could NOT BE REGARDED AS INSUFFICIENT

27
Q

Explain the case of Mellor 1996… (medical negligence)

A

D injured V who was 71 and he died in hospital 2 days later of pneumonia… D’s acts were not the only cause of death but the sufficient cause so charged with murder

28
Q

What do the 3 cases of medical negligence show about the D being guilty of murder/manslaughter? (3)

A

His acts are more than minimal cause of death
The injuries he inflicted were an operating cause at the time of death
The injuries he inflicted were a significant cause of death

29
Q

What is a point of contention in medical treatment?

A

Life support machines - where a doctor switches it off if they see no prospect of recovery

30
Q

Why do we state the cases Malcharek 1981 and Steele 1981 together?

A

Coincidentally at the same time at different ends of the country and therefore bought to the COA together

31
Q

Explain the cases Malcharek 1981 and Steele 1981…

A

M - victim was stabbed and severe injuries
S - man beat woman with rock
Both ended up on life support and it was eventually turned off.
Doctors did not take any responsibility and life support machines do not break chain of causation

32
Q

When is the same principle about life support machines applied even if the victim is not brain dead?

A

When they are in a persistent vegetative state - Airedale NHS Trust v Bland 1993 (Hillsborough disaster)

33
Q

Why have the courts set a precedent on doctors not being responsible in the interests of public policy?

A

It is important to protect the doctors

34
Q

Actions of the victim - what is the daftness test?

A

When the victim does something so daft or unexpected that no reasonable person could be expected to foresee it then it would break the chain of causation - case of Roberts 1972 shows this

35
Q

What did the case Williams and Davis 1992 question about the daftness test?

A

Was the V’s conduct proportionate to the threat? (were they being threatened so much they had no other option)

36
Q

Explain the case Williams and Davis 1992…

A

D’s pick up hitchhiker on way to Glastonbury - V jumped out of 30mph moving car and died, alleged that D’s were robbing him.
Conviction was quashed as almost total lack of evidence of threat

37
Q

Explain the case Roberts 1972…

A

21 year old woman jumped from car as man was making sexual advances to her at 3am on way to party - suffered concussion, he was convicted of ABH but said he could not foresee she would do that - still convicted

38
Q

Explain the case Marjoram 2002…

A

D forced way into 16 year old girls room, 3rd floor of hostel, scared her so she jumped/fell through window, life threatening injuries, reasonable person said IT WAS foreseeable even if D didn’t think so - guilty of GBH

39
Q

What do we consider about self neglect and voluntary acts?

A

If the V mistreats or neglects to treat own injuries it will not break chain of causation

40
Q

What case illustrates self neglect?

A

Holland 1841 - D cut of finger of V with iron bar, doctors advised amputation, V ignored and got lockjaw and died. JUDGE SAID WOUND WAS INFLICTED BY D AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE FOUND GUILTY OF MURDER

41
Q

What case did the HOL rule that a voluntary act by V breaks the chain of causation?

A

Kennedy 2007 - He injected heroin out of choice and died, COA said drug dealers fault as he supplied thing that killed him, HOL overruled and said his own fault as no-one forced him - THIS IS NOW PRECEDENT SINCE 2007

42
Q

What rule did the case Kennedy inflict?

A

Thin skull rule - take your victim as you find him

43
Q

What did the case Hayward 1908 state about the thin skull rule?

A

If victim has physical weakness the D cannot claim break in chain of causation as healthy person would not have died -
Thyrus gland problem which hastened death following assault by the D

44
Q

What other rule is established alongside the thin skull rule?

A

Take the victim as he finds him in mind and body

45
Q

What does the case Blaue 1975 show about the thin skull rule?

A

It was applied here as well. Needed blood transfusion after being stabbed, she doesn’t believe in them even though hospital said she’d die without - the D was still held responsible for death even though she had the chance to help herself

law a2 (17 decks)

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