Chapter 1 - AR (Case Law)

Question 1

Cunningham [1982]

Answer 1

The definition of murder - “the unlawful killing of another human being within the Queen’s peace”.

Question 2

Pittwood [1902]

Answer 2

Duty to act arising from contract. D was employed to operate a gate a level crossing. D left the gate the open and V was killed by an oncoming train. D’s duty to care arose out of his contractual duty to protect the public.

Question 3

Yaqoob [2005]

Answer 3

Duty to act arising from contract D was the manager of a cab firm and failed to inspect the tyres of a minibus that was involved in a fatal crash. The Court of Appeal heald that the jury could construe a duty of care to the public, extending beyond the duty to MOT the vehicle and conduct required inspections

Question 4

Gibbins and Proctor [1918]

Answer 4

Duty to act arising from a special relationship between the parties A father was found guilty of murder for deliberately witholding food from his child

Question 5

Hood [2004]

Answer 5

Duty to act arising from a special relationship between the parties D was sole carer of his wife (V), who had various medical conditions. V fell and broke her leg, but D failed to call an ambulance for 3 weeks. V died in hospital. The evidence was that the low standard of care had contibuted to her death. D owed a duty of care to his wife to summon help.

Question 6

Airedale National Health Service Trust v Bland [1993]

Answer 6

The duty to act may cease to apply in certain circumstances The parents wanted their son, who was in a vegetative state, to die peacefully and applied for a decleration that they might discontinue ventilation, nutrition and medical care. The Court of Appeal held that if, having regard to responsible and competent medical opinion, it was no longer in the best interests of the patient to be kept alive and therefore the doctors would be relieved of their duty to act. In the absence of a duty to keep V alive, there could be no breach of duty by the doctors.

Question 7

Dytham [1979]

Answer 7

A duty to act arising from D holding a public office A police constable on duty was held to have committed an offence when he knowingly failed to intervene when V was beather to death by a “bouncer”.

Question 8

Stone and Dobinson [1977]

Answer 8

A duty to act arises where D voluntarily assumes responsibility for a person or situation D’s allowed V (a vulnerable individual) to live with them. Both D’s made ineffectual efforts to contact a docor but gave up, though they could easily have informed a social worker who regularly visitied. Stone was a blood relative and had involved himself by trying to find a doctor. Dobinson had involved herself by cleaning V and also by trying to find a doctor. The ration of the case was that no matter how small their efforts to care for V, both Ds were in breach of a duty to act because of an assumption of responsibility.

Question 9

Miller [1983]

Answer 9

A duty to act arising from D creating a dangerous situation (either deliberately or accidentally) D was a squatter who fell asleep whilst holding a lit cigarette. The cigarette caused the mattress to smoulder. D awoke and merely moved into another room, leaving the mattress to smoulder. D was found guilty of criminal damage as D had created a dangerous situation and was therefore under a duty to put out the fire and eradicate the danger.

Question 10

Santana-Bermudez [2004]

Answer 10

A duty to act arising from D creating a dangerous situation (either deliberately or accidentally) A police officer (V) was intending to carry out a full body search on D and asked him to turn out his pockets. V asked D if he had any syringes on him, and D said no. V was subsequently pricked by a needle when searching D. The Divisional Court held that where D, by acts and/or words, exposes a person to a reasonable foreseeable risk of injury, which then materialises because he failed to prevent the risk, this can amount to the AR of battery.

Question 11

Wacker [2003]

Answer 11

A duty of care will exist, even though the person affected by D’s conduct also engages in criminal activity D owed a duty of care to the illegal immigrants who were in his lorry and subsequently died from lack of air.

Question 12

Pagett [1983]

Answer 12

Successful factual causation test Factual causation is established if it can be said that “but for” D’s actions, the result would not have occured as it did and when it did. In this case, police bullets killed D’s hostage. This would not have happened “but for” D’s conduct of using V as a human shield.

Question 13

White [1910]

Answer 13

Unsuccessful factual causation test D intended to murder his mother with cyanide, but she died shortly beforehand due to an unrelated heart attack. D could not be convicted of murder due to the “but for” test.

Question 14

Dalloway [1847]

Answer 14

Legal causation test. Is the result the natural and probable (or objectively foreseeable) result of D’s act/omission D was negliglenty driving a horse and cart without holding onto the reins. A child ran out infront of the horse and died. D was found not guilty as D would not have been able to stop in time, even if he had been driving properly. The law requires D’s culpable act or ommission to cause the death.

Question 15

Marjoram [1999]

Answer 15

Determining where an escape case breaks the chain of causation A group of youngsters were banging on V’s hostel door and shouting abuse. V fell or jumped out of her window trying to escape. It was argued by D that because he was only 15, the result of V trying to escape was not reasonably foreseeable to him. It was held that the test is objective and D’s characteristics are not relevant, only V’s. What would an ordinary reasonable person think was likely to happen, given the age, sex and any other relevant characteristic of the victim?

Question 16

Rafferty [2007]

Answer 16

Chain of causation and new intervening acts - D and Xs seriously assaulted and robbed V on a beach. While the attack continued, D left the scene with V’s debit card to try and withdraw some cash. In the meantime, Xs dragged V across the beach and drowned him. D’s original conviction of manslaughter was quashed as his assault did not cause V’s death. X’s conduct of taking V into the sea was a new intervening act breaking the chain of causation.

Question 17

Cheshire [1991]

Answer 17

Medical intervention and chain of causation D shot V in the leg and abdomen. While the wound was healing, a tracheotomy became necessary because of respiratory problems. This led to narrowing of the windpipe which was undetected and led to death. The Court of Appeal held that the test for breaking the chain of causation is whether D’s conduct is a “significant” cause of the result. D’s conduct will be seen as significant unless the medical negligence was “so independent” of D’s conduct and “so potent” in causing the result. The medical negligence would have to be unforeseeable. It seems that medical treatment is more likely to break the chain of causation where it involves a positive act of negligence, rather than an omission like this case.

Question 18

Dyson [1908]

Answer 18

Pre-existing medical conditions not breaking the chain of causation D will be the legal cause of the result, even though a normal person would not have suffered the same result. In this case, D injured V, who also had meningitis. Due to the meningitis, the attack caused V to die and D remained the legal cause. A person must take their victim as they find them.

Question 19

Kennedy (No 2) [2007]

Answer 19

Heroin case and chain of causation D supplied a syringe full of heroin to V. V then self-injected and died. D initially found guilty but his conviction was quashed as it was held that a “free, voluntary and informed” act of the victim broke the chain of causation.

Question 20

Roberts [1971]

Answer 20

Escape cases and breaking the chain of causation D was travelling in a car between 20 and 40mph when he attacked V. V jumped out of the car and sustained actual bodily harm. It was held that D’s conduct remained the operating and substantial cause of the result where the escape is reasonable foreseeable, which in turn means that it was not daft or foolhardy.

Question 21

Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1968]

Answer 21

AR preceding the MR The AR and MR must both exist at the same time. In this case, D accidentally drove his car on V’s foot but then refused to remove it once he realised what had happened (therefore an omission). To establish a coincidence of AR and MR, the Court of Appeal held that the initial positive act of driving the car onto V’s foot continued up until the point that the MR formed. Therefore the AR of battery was present at the same time the MR formed.