Core principles MCQs Flashcards
A man is thrown out of a club for being too drunk, whilst outside he gets into a fight with the bouncer. The man punches the bouncer causing him to stagger backwards and hit his head on the wall behind him. The bouncer is knocked unconscious and the man runs away.
An ambulance is called and the bouncer is taken to hospital. Medical staff see that the bouncer has lost a lot of blood and arrange for a blood transfusion. They fail to read his medical notes properly and use the wrong blood type. The bouncer dies shortly after the blood transfusion procedure.
Which of the following best represents whether the man will be liable for murdering the bouncer?
The man will be liable for murder unless it can be shown that the poor medical treatment is so negligent and falls below the standard of ordinary medical treatment that would mean that there has been a break in the chain of causation.
The man will be liable for murder unless it can be shown that the poor medical treatment is so independent from his actions and potent in causing the death that there has been a break in the chain of causation.
The man will not be liable for murder as the poor medical treatment is the significant and substantial cause of the bouncer’s death.
The man will not be liable for murder as the poor medical treatment is more than minimal to causing the bouncer’s death.
The man will be liable for murder unless it can be shown that the poor medical treatment is the significant and substantial cause of the bouncer’s death as ‘but for’ the poor medical treatment the bouncer would not have died.
The man will be liable for murder unless it can be shown that the poor medical treatment is so independent from his actions and potent in causing the death that there has been a break in the chain of causation.
Correct, poor medical treatment would only break the chain of causation if it is so independent from the defendant’s original actions and it becomes the potent cause of death. In these circumstances, the medical treatment is not so independent as the blood transfusion is only required as a direct result of the man’s actions.
A brother and sister have a fight, during which the brother is knocked unconscious. The sister runs off. Soon after, a gang member appears and stabs the brother in the chest. He dies from the stab wound.
Has the sister caused her brother’s death, as required for the actus reusof murder?
She has caused her brother’s death because there can be more than one cause
She has caused her brother’s death as she must take her brother as she finds him, with a gang member that wants to kill him
She has caused her brother’s death because but for the sister rendering her brother unconscious, the gang member would not have been able to stab him
She has not caused her brother’s death because the gang member’s act is a free, deliberate and informed act
She has not caused her brother’s death because the gang member’s action was not reasonably foreseeable
She has not caused her brother’s death because the gang member’s act is a free, deliberate and informed act
Correct. To be the cause of her brother’s death she must be the factual and legal cause. This question is about legal causation and whether the sister is the operating cause of her brother’s death. The chain of causation is broken by the act of the gang member. It was held in R v Pagett that the chain of causation will be broken by a free, deliberate and informed act of a third party.
The other answers were incorrect.
The ‘reasonably foreseeable’ test is the one applied when considering whether acts of the victim will break the chain of causation.
The answers that stated the sister caused her brother’s death overlooked whether the gang member’s act broke the chain of causation:
· While the sister is the factual cause of her brother’s death, she must also be the legal cause.
· It is true that the sister’s act need not be the only cause of her brother’s death, it is enough that it is a substantial cause. However, the sister’s act must also be an operating cause.
· While the sister must take her brother as she finds him, the thin skull rule tends to be applied to issues such as a pre-existing infirmity or peculiarity.
A woman crosses a red light on her bicycle and accidentally hits a pedestrian. The pedestrian’s neck is broken and it is doubtful whether he will live. The pedestrian claims damages from the woman. The woman’s solicitor tells her she was negligent and will be liable for several million pounds in damages if the pedestrian survives. If he dies she will have to pay a few thousand pounds as the pedestrian has no dependents. The woman is not covered by insurance so will lose her house and all her savings if the pedestrian survives. She is at an age where she will not be able to buy another house or save much for her retirement. She begins to formulate a plan to smother the pedestrian. Before she can take any action, the pedestrian dies as a result of the injuries sustained in the collision and the woman is pleased he has died.
Which of the following best describes the woman’s liability for murder?
She is guilty because at the time of the pedestrian’s death the woman had the mens rea of murder
She is not guilty because there is no coincidence of actus reus and mens rea
She is not guilty because she does not have the mens rea of murder given she did not put her plan into action
She is guilty because there is coincidence of actus reus and mens rea by virtue of this being a series of acts that form one transaction
She is guilty because there is coincidence of actus reus and mens rea by virtue of the continuing act theory
She is not guilty because there is no coincidence of actus reus and mens rea
Correct. The actus reus took place at the time of the act (hitting the pedestrian with the bicycle) which ultimately caused death. The mens rea for murder is intention or kill or intention to cause grievous bodily harm. At the time of hitting the pedestrian, the woman did not have the mens rea of murder.
The other answers were incorrect. The continuing act theory cannot be used as the woman’s act of hitting the pedestrian had finished long before the woman intended the pedestrian’s death. The series of acts theory cannot be used as this is not a case where the woman initially acts with the mens rea and a later act designed to cover up the first act causes death, as in R v Thabo Meli. The woman had only done one act and she did not have the mens rea at that time. Formulating a plan to smother the pedestrian constituted the mens rea of murder, intention to kill, regardless of whether she took any steps to put her plan into action. The actus reus did not take place at the time of the pedestrian’s death.
A man lives alone and is reliant upon the care provided to him by his niece following an injury at work he suffered a year ago. The niece has cared for the man throughout this year. This includes bringing the man food and collecting his medications from the pharmacy. The niece accepts money from her uncle for these items but does not accept his offer of payment for her time in doing this. The niece becomes very busy at work and does not call on her uncle as often as she used to, which means that the man only receives food irregularly and has been without medication for a week. One night the niece notices that her uncle has become unwell and assists him into bed to rest. The man dies in the night.
Which of the following best describes the niece’s liability for the man’s death?
The niece may be liable for the man’s death as she had a special relationship to him.
The niece is liable for the man’s death as she has a contractual duty to her uncle.
The niece is not liable for the man’s death because there can be no liability for an omission.
The niece is liable for the man’s death as she has created a dangerous situation in leaving him without medical assistance.
The niece may be liable for the man’s death as she had voluntarily assumed a duty of care towards him.
The niece may be liable for the man’s death as she had voluntarily assumed a duty of care towards him.
Correct. There is generally no duty to act to prevent harm, R v Smith (William). However, the niece has voluntarily assumed a duty of care towards the man by caring for him for the last year and therefore may be liable for his death, R v Stone and Dobinson. While the other options might sound plausible, they are each incorrect. A defendant can be liable for an omission if they have a legal duty to act. The relationship between an uncle and a niece is likely to not be sufficiently proximate for a duty of care to arise by virtue of the special relationship duty. Although the niece accepts money to reimburse her for the items she collects, she has refused her uncle’s payment for her time and so there is no indication of a contract of employment. Finally, this scenario is more analogous to the voluntary assumption of a duty of care cases, than creating a dangerous situation as illustrated by the case of Miller for example.
