Chapter 13- Actus Reus Flashcards
What happened in Marchant and Muntz and what area of law does it relate to?
-farmer (D1) owned a vehicle with 1m spikes
-Vehicle was authorised for use on public roads
-D1 gave employee (D2) instructions to drive vehicle on road to deliver hay bales
-Motor cyclist approached at high speed and was impaled, dying from injuries
- D1 and D2 were convicted of causing death from dangerous driving
-Court of Appeal quashed convictions as there was no suggestion D2s driving was dangerous
(Consequence crimes)
What happened in R v Larsonneur and what part of law does it relate to?
-Frenchwomen ordered to leave UK
-She decided to go by boat to Ireland
-On landing she was immediately deported and sent back to UK involuntarily
-On arrival in UK she was immediately arrested and charged
-Convicted because 1) she was an alien who had been refused leave to land, 2) she was found in the UK
-It didn’t matter that she had been sent back against her will
(State of affairs, but not one that the defendant entered voluntarily)
What happened in R v Mitchell and what area of law does it apply to?
-D tried to push in a queue
-Old man told him off
-D punched the man causing him to stagger into an even older women
-The women was knocked over and injured, later dying
-D was charged with manslaughter
-The old man wasn’t liable
(Voluntary nature of actus reus- involuntarily)
What happened in R v Pittwood and what does it apply to?
-Railway crossing keeper ommitted to shut the gates, causing a person to be struck and killed by a train
-This resulted in them being charged with manslaughter
(Omissions exceptions- Contractual duty)
What happened in R v Gibbins and Proctor and how does it apply to both omissions exceptions of 1) relationship and 2)voluntary)
1) Relationships= Father and mistress deliberately starved one of his children to death, being found guilty of murder. This is because they have a duty to feed her.
2) Voluntary= The mistress had voluntarily undertaken to look after the child
What happened in R v Dytham had what does it relate to?
-Police officer failed to intervene during a fight that happened close by to him
-He was guilty of misconduct in public office, and without reasonable excuse neglecting to perform his duty
(Omissions exceptions- An official position)
What happened in R v Miller and what does it relate to?
-Squatter accidentally started a fire, but didn’t report it to anyone or attempt to put the fire out
-He was convicted of arson
-He was guilty due to not taking reasonable steps to deal with the fire when he had discovered it
(Omissions exceptions- a chain of events)
What happened in Airedale NHS Trust v Bland and what does it relate to?
-Bland was crushed by a crowd in the Hillsborough disaster at the Hills borough football stadium
-He had severe brain damage and was unable to do anything himself
-He had been in this state for 3 years, and the doctors asked the court for a ruling to stop feeding him
-Court ruled doctors could stop artificially feeding Bland even though it was known that he would die as a result due to being in his best interests
(Omissions exceptions- Doctors duty)
What happened in R v Pagett and how does it relate to 2 types of causation; 1) fatual cause and 2) intervening acts ?
Factual Cause 1)-D took pregnant girlfriend by force and held her hostage
-Police told him to surrender
-D came out with girl in front of him firing at the police
-Police returned fire and their bullets killed her
-D was convicted of manslaughter
(‘But for’ test)
Intervening Acts 2)- D likely caused consequence when using GF as shield against the police
What happened in R v Kimsey and what does it relate to?
-D involved in high speed car chase with friend
-She lost control of car and killed other driver
-Judge told jury that D didn’t have to be the principal or cause of death as long as you’re sure that it was a cause and something more than a slight link
-Court of appeal upheld conviction of death by dangerous drivng
(Legal cause)
What happened in R v Blaue and what does it relate to?
-Woman stabbed by D
-Told she needed a blood transfusion to live
-She was refused as she was a Jehovah’s Witness
-She later died and the D was convicted of murder
(The ‘thin skull’ rule)
What happened in R v Smith and what does it relate to?
-2 soldiers had a fight, causing 1 to be stabbed in lung
-V was carried to medical centre where he was dropped on the way
-At centre staff gave him artificial respiration by pressing on chest, making injury worse
-He then died from injuries
-Poor treatment affected recovery by 75%
-D was guilty as stab was still ‘operating’ and was substantial in cause of victims death
(Medical treatment- causation)
What happened in R v Malcherek and what does it relate to?
-D stabbed wife in stomach
-She was put on life support but found to be brain dead so life support was turned off
-D charged with murder
-Judge refused to allow the issue of causation to go to jury, so was convicted
(Life support machines- causation)
What happened in R v Roberts and what does it relate to?
-Girl jumped form car to escape D sexual advances
-Car was travelling between 20 and 40 mph
-girl was injured
-D was liable
(Victims own act- causation)
What happened in R v Williams and Davis and what does it relate to?
-Hitchhiker jumped from D car and died
-Car was travelling at 30 mph
-Prosecution said he jumped due to attempted wallet theft
-Court of Appeal said V act had to be foreseeable and in proportion to the threat
(unreasonable reaction- causation)
