Crime Flashcards

Question

What is the significance of Airedale NHS Trust v Bland 1993?

Answer 1

If discontinuing treatment is in the best interests of the patient then it is not an omission so does not form the Actus reus

Answer 2

An element needed to establish the Actus Reus in consequence crimes

Answer 3

1. D’s conduct was the factual cause of the consequence 2. It was the legal cause of that consequence 3. There was no intervening act which broke the chain of causation

Answer 4

Starting point in establishing the chin of causation, proving that the unlawful consequence would not have happened “but for” D’s conduct

Answer 5

White 1910- D tried to poison his mother but she actually died of a heart attack so he wasn’t a factual cause Pagett 1983- D was the factual consequence because his girlfriend would not have died “but for” him using his girlfriend and firing at police

Answer 6

Supreme Court emphasised need for there to be a “legally effective” cause of the consequence. Nothing Hughes did in the manner of his driving (uninsured) contributed to the death. It was V’s fault , who was on drugs on the wrong side of the road

Answer 7

D’s contribution must be more than minimal

Answer 8

Kimsey 1996- D and V in a high speed car chase, V lost control of the car and died. D’s driving was more than minimal Benge 1846- D was a foreman working on a train track but failed to give adequate warning to approaching train driver and a fatal accident occurred. D substantially caused the death through his negligence even though D’s conduct was not the only cause of the consequence

Answer 9

If V has a special characteristic or vulnerability which makes an injury more serious, then D is liable for the more serious injury even if D was unaware of that possibility because “D must take V as he or she finds him”

Answer 10

Blake 1975 D was held responsible for V’s death when the Jehovah’s Witness he stabbed refused a blood transfusion, despite the fact she would’ve survived if she had accepted the treatment

Answer 11

May “break the chin of causation” and prevent D from being liable for the ultimate result - An unforeseeable act of nature e.g being struck by lightning - An unforeseeable act of a third party - V’s own subsequent conduct

Answer 12

V’s own act will not break the chain of causation

Answer 13

Roberts 1971- V’s reaction to jump from a moving car after D made sexual advances towards her was reasonably foreseeable. The chain of causation was not broken Williams 1992- V died after jumping from a moving car to avoid having his wallet stolen. This reaction was disproportionate to the threat so broke the chain of causation

Answer 14

Kennedy (No.2) 2007- D supplied drugs to V, who died after self-injecting. V’s voluntary act broke the chain of causation

Answer 15

Medical treatment if unlikely to break the chain of causation unless it is so independent of D’s conduct and “in itself so potent causing death” that D’s acts are insignificant

Answer 16

Smith 1959 Cheshire 1991 Jordan 1956

Answer 17

After being stabbed in a fight with D, V was dropped twice on way to treatment centre and then left untreated for some time. Court recognised this contributed to V’s death but D guilty of murder as the stab wound was still “operating” (not healed) and was a “substantial” cause

Answer 18

D shot V and V needed a tracheotomy. 2 months after the shooting, V died from rare complications from the operation. Although V’s wounds at the time were no longer life-threatening, D was still held to be liable for the death as his actions of shooting V had significantly contributed to the death

Answer 19

Only if it is exceptionally bad or if it makes D’s original acts significant

Answer 20

V was stabbed by D. V’s wounds were healing when Doctors gave him a large number of antibiotics which he was allergic to and he died. The chain of causation was broken and the medical treatment was “palpably wrong” and it was the overwhelming cause of death as the original wounds had virtually healed

Answer 21

A decision by a doctor to switch off a life-support machine when the victim is brain-dead will not break the chain of causation

Answer 22

D’s state of mind at the time of committing the offence

Answer 23

Intention. For some offences e.g murder only intention suffices

Answer 24

Subjectively- based on what D in those circumstances thought

Answer 25

Direct intention and indirect intention

Answer 26

Where the result is D’s aim or purpose. Mohan 1975 defined direct intent as “a decision to bring about the prohibited consequence” no matter whether D desired the consequence or not

Answer 27

D had driven his car straight at a police officer with the aim of injuring him

Answer 28

Where the result isn’t D’s aim, yet he or she realises it is “virtually certain” to occur as a result of their actions e.g Woolin 1998

Answer 29

D threw his baby son across the room. He argued that he had thrown the baby towards the pram but had not intended to kill him

Answer 30

It must be shown that D is aware of a risk of the consequence happening, but deliberately goes ahead and takes it anyway

Answer 31

Subjective- based on was in D’s mind

Answer 32

D tore a gas meter from a wall in order to steal money in the meter. Gas escaped and seeped through to an adjoining property, poisoning the neighbour. Since D didn’t realise there was not a possibility of this happening, he was not reckless

Answer 33

Two Defendants aged 11 and 13 had not realised there was danger of a fire spreading uncontrollably to a nearby supermarket. The SC confirmed it was only fair to judge the boys against the risks they had foreseen

Answer 34

If he or she fails to meet the standard of a reasonable person

Answer 35

Objective- D doesn’t have to realise this

Answer 36

Manslaughter

Answer 37

An anaesthetist was liable for gross negligence manslaughter when he took several minutes to notice a breathing tube had become disconnected during an operation. A reasonable anaesthetist would’ve noticed within a couple of seconds

Answer 38

“No fault’ offence where D can be convicted if his voluntary act caused a prohibited consequence, even though D was totally blameless in respect of that consequence

Answer 39

No, they do not require Men’s Rea

Answer 40

Usually only a fine and not a custodial or community sentence

Answer 41

Butcher was convicted of selling contaminated meat even though it had been certified as fit for human consumption by a vet. It is a strict liability offence so even though D had taken reasonable care not to commit the offence, D was guilty.

Answer 42

D was charged with selling alcohol to a drunk person. It did not matter that D did not know that the person was drunk. No defence of mistake

Answer 43

Staff member in a newsagents sold a lottery ticket to a 13 year old who looked much older. The owners were liable despite telling their staff not to sell tickets to anyone underage. No defence of due diligence

Answer 44

- Act of Parliament will make it clear if mens rea is needed e.g using words like reckless or intention - If an Act makes it clear that mens rea is not required, it will be a strict liability offence e.g driving without a licence - If there is no Act of Parliament or the words of the statue do not make it clear, the judges presume that mens rea is required

Answer 45

D rented a farmhouse to students who, unknown to her, used it to smoke cannabis. The Court reiterated the general rule that MR is required for D to be guilty of a crime. Parliament does not intending to make criminals who are not blameworthy

Answer 46

15 year old boy asked a 13 year old girl on a bus to have oral sex believing she was over 14. D was charged with inciting a child under 14 to commit gross indecency, which carried a maximum sentence of 2 years imprisonment. The Court quashed D’s conviction and said MR was needed for this serious offence

Answer 47

Factory was fined for polluting a river when its pumps blocked. The court said it was in the public interest to protect the environment

Answer 48

This means they may be guilty even though the AR was involuntary e.g Larsonneur 1933 where D was taken against her will to England

Answer 49

D can be guilty if he or she intended to commit a crime against A but actually commits the same offence against B

Answer 50

D aimed a blow with a belt at a man but the belt bounced off the man and struck a woman in the face. D was guilty of an assault against the woman, even though he had not mentioned to hit her. Applying the principle of transferred malice, the MR directed at the intended victim (man) was transferred to the unintended victim of the crime (woman)

Answer 51

Passerby was shot in a gang shootout in which D had participated. The person who fired the shot “Bandana Man’ was never caught but would’ve been guilty of murder under principle of transferred malice. D had participated in the attempted murder so was still guilty of the murder of the passerby under joint enterprise

Answer 52

D threw a stone at V but missed, smashing a window instead. D was not liable for the damage to the window because MR could not be transferred from a crime against a person (intending assault) to a crime against property (criminal damage)

Answer 53

D’s MR is held to apply to the actual victim

Answer 54

Both the AR and MR must be present at the same time

Answer 55

Continuing acts and a series of connected acts

Answer 56

Where there is an initial AR and while the AR is still going on, D forms the MR so the AR and MR coincide

Answer 57

D drove onto a police officer’s foot by mistake (AR of battery). When D realised what he had done and refused to move his car, he formed the MR. The AR was treated as a continuing act and therefore it did not matter if the MR was formed a little afterwards

Answer 58

Where there is an initial MR. D performs a series of acts which connected together from the AR. The AR and MR are still said to coincide

Answer 59

Ds attacked V, intending to kill him. Then they rolled what they thought was his dead body off a cliff to make it look like an accident. However V was actually unconscious at this point and died hours later from exposure. The first act (the attack) was accompanied by MR but that was not the cause of death (so no AR). The second act (pushing him over the cliff) was the cause of death but Ds argued this was not accompanied by MR. The Court said it was “impossible to divide up what was really one series of acts” so the murder convictions were upheld

Answer 60

Murder- the most serious offence against another person Manslaughter- a broad term which ranges between intentional killing and accidental death

Answer 61

Voluntary and involuntary

Answer 62

D possesses the necessary mental intent at the time of the killing, but because of a special defence D is only convicted of manslaughter

Answer 63

Loss of control Diminished responsibility

Answer 64

Unlawful killing where the AR of murder has been committed his been committed, but without the necessary MR for murder (malice aforethought)

Answer 65

Unlawful act manslaughter Gross negligence manslaughter

Answer 66

The unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being under the King’s Peace with malice forethought, express of implied

Answer 67

Unlawfully causing the death of a human being with intention to either kill or cause serious injury

Answer 68

Unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen’s Peace (within the country of the realm)

Answer 69

Intention to kill or intention to cause serious injury (malice aforethought)

Answer 70

The killing can be by an act or an omission

Answer 71

The parents’ failure to feed their daughter who starved to death (omission), was enough for the AR of murder

Answer 72

But for D’s conduct, V would not have died

Answer 73

D’s act or omission was a more than minimal cause of V’s death

Answer 74

Excludes a foetus or a person who is brain dead

Answer 75

A foetus killed in the womb cannot be victim of murder. It is also not possible to have a legal intent to kill or sincerely injure a foetus. Similarly, transferred malice cannot be used where the MR of murder is directed at a pregnant mother and the unborn baby dies

Answer 76

Doctors switched off life support machines as both victims weren’t showing any activity in their brain stem. The court decided that doctors can switch off a life support machine when D is brain dead as the person is no longer a reasonable creature in being

Answer 77

Queen’s Peace

Answer 78

Killing an enemy in battle when the country is at war

Answer 79

Enemy soldiers who have been taken prisoner or have surrendered are protected by the law on murder

Answer 80

Killing an enemy combatant after they were seriously injured and no longer a threat was a killing under the King’s Peace

Answer 81

Killing a person anywhere in the UK

Answer 82

A British citizen can be tried in English courts for a murder committed overseas

Answer 83

Intention to kill

Answer 84

Intention to cause serious harm

Answer 85

D struck V with several blows during a burglary of V’s shop, V died. The court decided that where D intends to inflict GBH and V dies, this is enough for murder

Answer 86

Subjective (s.8 Criminal Justice Act 1967)- jury must decide that D intended death or serious injury

Answer 87

Direct and indirect

Answer 88

D’s aim, purpose or objective e.g Mohan 1976

Answer 89

D realised the consequence was virtually certain e.g Woollin 1998

Answer 90

Then he may be found guilty of indirectly intending murder

Answer 91

They are not entitled to find an indirect intention unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was 1. A virtual certainty as a result of D’s actions and 2. That D appreciated that it was

Answer 92

No, therefore even if the jury is satisfied that D foresaw the virtual certainty of death or GBH they do not have to find that D intended the result

Answer 93

Ds pushed V from a bridge into a fast-flowing river, knowing that he couldn’t swim. He fell 25 feet and drowned. Foresight of a consequence s a virtual certainty is only evidence from which a jury may find attention

Answer 94

Loss of Control or Diminished Responsibility

Answer 95

Apply to a charge of murder and reflect the fact that in some way the Defendant is less blameworthy

Answer 96

Manslaughter

Answer 97

It means a judge has discretion in the sentence he or she imposes, therefore avoiding the mandatory life sentence for murder

Answer 98

Partial defence which covers situations where D causes death but at the time of the killing lost self-control and reacted as a “normal person” might have in D’s situation

Answer 99

(1) A person who kills may be convicted of manslaughter rather than murder where there exists (a) a loss of control (b) the loss of control had a “qualifying trigger”, and (c) a person of D’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or similar way to D

Answer 100

Jewell 2014

Answer 101

D shot V at point blank range using a shotgun and fled the scene. The Court decided that there was insufficient evidence of D having lost his self-control and there was “overwhelming” evidence that this was a planned execution

Answer 102

Subjectively

Answer 103

The loss of control need not be sudden, it may follow from the cumulative impact of earlier events (basically it can build up over time)

Answer 104

Specifically excludes situation where D has acted “in a considered desire for revenge”

Answer 105

It may indicate no current loss of self-control or the facts may suggest a “considered desire for revenge” but refer to any evidence in answer

Answer 106

Ahluwalia 1992

Answer 107

After years of abuse, D set husband’s room on fire and his injuries killed him. Not revenge but battered woman syndrome liberated convictions for abused women killing their husbands

Answer 108

S.55 Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Answer 109

Either trigger is sufficient or it may be a combination of both that caused D to lose control and kill

Answer 110

The “fear” trigger

Answer 111

D fears serious violence from V against D or another identified person

Answer 112

Subjectively

Answer 113

D killed V after V had attacked D’s brother. D did not fear serious violence towards himself but s.55 (3) applied because D feared V would use serious violence towards his brother (an identifiable person)

Answer 114

The “anger” trigger

Answer 115

Things said or done (or both) which are (a) of an extremely grave character AND (b) caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged

Answer 116

Objectively

Answer 117

Zebedee 2012

Answer 118

D lost control when his 94 year old father who had Alzheimer’s, repeatedly soiled himself. Neither of the 2 conditions in s.55 (4) were satisfied

Answer 119

Hatter 2013

Answer 120

The Court decided that “the breakup of a relationship itself will not normally constitute circumstances of an extremely grave character and entitle the aggrieved party to feel a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged”

Answer 121

Limations on qualifying triggers

Answer 122

- Sexual infidelity - Incitement - Revenge

Answer 123

Clinton 2012

Answer 124

V taunted D about her affair and taunted him about sleeping with five men, giving graphic details. She also sniggered after discovering he had been looking at suicide websites. The Court decided that loss of control triggered by sexual infidelity on its own couldn’t qualify as a trigger, but it would be wrong to exclude it where sexual infidelity forms an essential part of another possible trigger, in this case V’s taunting of D

Answer 125

A person may not raise a qualifying trigger if they incited the thing done or said or the violence

Answer 126

Dawes 2013

Answer 127

D found his wife and V asleep on the sofa with their legs entwined. D claimed that V then attacked him with a bottle and that is why he fatally stabbed V. D couldn’t rely on sexual infidelity as a qualifying trigger or serious violence as he induced that violence

Answer 128

S.55 (4) excludes situations where D has acted “in a considered desire for revenge”

Answer 129

S.54 (1) (c) requires that a person of the Defendant’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of the Defendant, might’ve reacted in the same or similar way

Answer 130

- Degree of tolerance and self-restraint - Circumstances of the Defendant - Might have reacted in the same or similar way to D

Answer 131

Objective test as D is expected to show a normal degree of self-control. Apart from sex and age, the jury cannot consider any circumstance of D that made him or her have less self-control

Answer 132

Jury must look at all of D’s circumstances apart from those whose only relevance is to her on D’s general capacity for tolerance and self-restraint s.54 (3)

Answer 133

Yes although it is excluded as a qualifying trigger if

Answer 134

Yes although it is excluded as a qualifying trigger

Answer 135

Yes but it cannot be relevant to the normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint exercised

Answer 136

Rejmanski 2017

Answer 137

D was a former solider who flew into a rage and killed V, who had made negative comments about his military service. The Court of Appeal decided that in this case PSTD had to be excluded from the description of a “normal person” as there was insufficient evidence that it was relevant to D’s conduct. However, the Court suggested obiter, an example where a mental disorder could be relevant as one of D’s circumstances

Answer 138

Asmelash 2013

Answer 139

D claimed V was abusive which made D so angry he lost control and killed V. The Court decided that D being drunk was not one of his circumstances that had to be considered as it only related to D’s general capacity to exercise tolerance and self-restraint

Answer 140

The alcohol or drug problem would then form part of the circumstances for consideration

Answer 141

The defence will fail if the jury considers that the “normal person” might have lost control but wouldn’t have reacted in the same way

Answer 142

Christian 2018 Van Dongen 2005

Answer 143

D stabbed two victims to death during an altercation in their shared living accommodation about the shower water temperature. Despite there being evidence of a loss of control, the judge ruled that the defence shouldn’t be left to the jury as D’s reaction was so extreme that the jury concluded no normal person would’ve reacted in the same or similar way

Answer 144

D repeatedly kicked V in the head and body while he was lying on the ground. While a normal person may have lost control, they would not have reacted in this way

Answer 145

S.2 Homicide Act 1957 and amended by s.52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Answer 146

A person who kills may be convicted of manslaughter rather than murder if he or she was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which (a) arose from a recognised medical condition (b) substantially impaired D’s ability to: (i) understand the nature of his conduct or (ii) form a rational judgement or (iii) exercise self-control, and (c) provides an explanation for Ds acts and omissions in killing (One of the things of b)

Answer 147

- Abnormlity of mental functioning - Recognised medical condition - Substantial impairment - Explains the killing

Answer 148

Byrne 1960

Answer 149

D was a sexual psychopath who strangled and mutilated a woman. Medical evidence showed his abnormality of mind meant he was unable to control his perverted desires. Abnormality of mind means “a state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it normal”

Answer 150

Psychological and physical conditions including: - Psychotic condition (Golds 2016) - Post-natal depression (Boots 2012) - Mental disorder (Brennan 2014) - Alcohol dependency syndrome (Wood 2008) - Depressive illness (Dietschmann 2003) - Asperger’s syndrome (Jama 2004) - Battered Spouses’ syndrome (Hobson 1997) - Severe learning difficulties

Answer 151

Golds 2014

Answer 152

D admitted killing. Evidence for DR but jury rejected it. D appealed- jury should’ve been told “substantially” meant more than trivial The substantial test is not met once something more than trivial is shown. The jury must apply their common sense in the range from trivial to total

Answer 153

Boots 2012

Answer 154

Brennan 2014

Answer 155

D was a male prostitution who killed a client. Expert psychotic evidence fully supported DR defence. Jury convicted him of manslaughter on the basis of DR

Answer 156

Woods 2008

Answer 157

D was suffering from alcohol dependency syndrome, killed V with a meat cleaver. The jury must only consider the effects of involuntary drinking

Answer 158

D stabbed his friend 60 times in a row over computer game. Asperger’s syndrome formed basis of DR

Answer 159

Hobson 1997

Answer 160

Need at least 2 doctors notes at the trial

Answer 161

It is a matter of degree for the jury to decide in each case (Golds 2016). The impairment must be beyond merely trivial, but D’s mental functioning need not be totally impaired

Answer 162

D has to prove that the abnormality of mental functioning provided an explanation for his acts (or omissions) s.52 (1) (c)

Answer 163

If it causes, or is a significant contributory factor in causing D to carry out the conduct- S.52 (1B)

Answer 164

Intoxication alone cannot support a defence of DR as the temporary effect of drink or drugs on the brain isn’t a recognised medical condition

Answer 165

Dowds- D killed partner in knife attack while heavily intoxicated. He could exercise choice over when he drank. Ratio: voluntary intoxication at the time of the killing cannot be used as the basis of a defence of DR

Answer 166

Alcohol Dependency Syndrome is a recognised medical condition, which means a person cannot control their drinking. This does not automatically mean D can rely on DR, but it may be the cause of an AMF

Answer 167

Wood- D had ADS but medical experts disagreed whether this had damaged his brain. Ratio: If alcohol has caused damage to the brain or become a disease, then DR is relevant. If D has ADS then not every drink consumed has to be involuntary. The jury has to consider all the evidence on the extent of D’s dependency and their ability to control it. If the consumption is not due to the addiction, it is classed as voluntary drinking and its effects cannot be considered

Answer 168

If D is already suffering from an AMF and has taken drugs/alcohol, the defence will be available if D satisfies the jury that despite the drink, his abnormality was a substantial impairment which explained the killing

Answer 169

Dietschmann- D had voluntrily taken alcohol and was suffering from an abnormality: depressed grief reaction to the death of his aunt Ratio: even though D had drinking, he could use DR defence, provided that the pre-existing AMF (his depression) substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his fatal acts

Answer 170

Unlawful killing without the intention to kill or cause GBH

Answer 171

Life imprisonment

Answer 172

Unlawful act manslaughter Gross negligence manslaughter

Answer 173

Where D causes death through doing an unlawful and dangerous act, without the malice aforethought for murder, and with the necessary mens rea for the unlawful act (Newbury and Jones)

Answer 174

Where D causes death by breaching a duty of care towards V in a grossly negligent way. D’s acts or omissions must fall so far below the standard of care that it goes beyond mere compensation and amounts to be a crime

Answer 175

1. D must do an unlawful act (a crime) 2. That the act must be dangerous on an objective test 3. The act must cause the death 4. D must have mens rea for the unlawful act

Answer 176

There must be an act- an omission is sufficient (e.g Lowe) and this unlawful act must be a criminal offence

Answer 177

Lambe 1967

Answer 178

D and friend were fooling round with a loaded revolver. One was killed, but no “unlawful act” existed because they did not properly understand the mechanism of the gun and didn’t expect it to fire

Answer 179

No, can be any unlawful act against a person or property provided it is likely to cause injury

Answer 180

Criminal damage- Newbury & Jones Burglary- Watson

Answer 181

Youths had thrown paving slabs from a bridge onto a passing train and killed the guard. D only needed to have MR of unlawful act, it was not necessary to prove that D foresaw any harm from his act

Answer 182

D was burgling house when an 87 year old man with a heart condition disturbed him. D was abusive and ran off. Shortly after, the old man had a heart attack and died. The unlawful act became dangerous as soon as D knew of the old man’s fragility. The jury is entitled to attribute D’s knowledge of the circumstances to the reasonable man

Answer 183

All sober and reasonable people would recognise must subject the other person to at least the risk of some harm (Church)

Answer 184

D set fire to his council house with the motive of getting rehoused. He had no intention to endanger life but his wife, son, and son’s gf were killed D was convicted of unlawful act manslaughter, it didn’t matter that his act of arson wasn’t directed at anyone

Answer 185

Following a fight in a nightclub, V died from a ruptured artery that was a rare injury to have occurred. The test for danger is whether a sober and reasonable person would foresee the risk of some harm. It didnt matter that they would not foresee the particular type of harm that occurred

Answer 186

Yes, emotional disturbance doesn’t count

Answer 187

Dawson Watson

Answer 188

V died from a heart attack when Ds held up a petrol station To satisfy the danger test, the risk of harm must be a risk of physical harm. A risk of emotional disturbance by itself is not enough

Answer 189

V had been hit by vehicles used by Ds to commit burglary of a workshop down the lane. There was a risk that someone might try to intervene to prevent escape The circumstances of the burglary meant that a reasonable and sober person would foresee the risk of some harm

Answer 190

The unlawful act must cause death in fact and law.

Answer 191

D prepared an injection of heroin and water for V to inject himself. V self-injected and died V’s voluntary act in injecting himself broke the chin of causation between D’s supply and V’s death

Answer 192

D only requires the mens rea for the initial unlawful act, there is no need to prove that D realises the act is dangerous or unlawful, or even that D foresees a risk of harm

Answer 193

Newbury and Jones

Answer 194

1. The existence of a duty of care owed by D by V 2. A breach of that duty of care which causes death 3. Gross negligence which the jury considers to be so bad as to be criminal

Answer 195

Decided by the trial judge

Answer 196

An anaesthetist failed to notice a breathing tube had become disconnected during an operation. V had a heart attack and died It was decided that the civil principles of negligence apply including neighbour principle e.g Donoghue v Stevenson- duty of care is owed to anyone it is reasonably foreseeable may be harmed by D’s negligent acts or omissions

Answer 197

Singh Litchfield Winter

Answer 198

A faulty gas fire caused the death of tenants. The landlord was held to have a duty to maintain the property

Answer 199

A ship’s captain set sail even though he knew the fuel was contaminated. The engine failed and crew drowned. The captain owed a duty of care to the crew

Answer 200

Ds owed a duty of care to inform firefighters attending a fire at their premises that they were storing unlicensed fireworks. Two firefighters died from explosion

Answer 201

D’s voluntarily undertook a duty of care for anorexic relative, but were liable for her death when they’re failed to get medical help

Answer 202

V overdosed on heroin supplied by V’s half-sister and collapsed. She and her mother didn’t seek medical help as they feared getting into trouble The mother clearly owed a duty to her daughter. Her half-sister also owed V a duty of care under the “Miller principle” of creating a dangerous situation and failing to minimise it

Answer 203

No there is a duty of care in criminal cases

Answer 204

Bodies of 58 illegal immigrants found in D’s lorry after the driver had closed the air vents to keep the noise down and avoid detection when crossing the channel. The driver had voluntarily assumed duty of care when he closed the vents and was in breach by not opening it

Answer 205

If D falls below the standard of the reasonable person performing the duty in question, they will be in breach of

Answer 206

Causation Risk of death

Answer 207

- Must be proved that the breach of duty caused the death - The normal rules of causation apply - When there is an omission, the prosecution have to prove that V would’ve survived if D had fulfilled his duty to act (Broughton)

Answer 208

D’s conduct must involve a foreseeable risk of death at the time of of the breach. This is a objective test

Answer 209

Singh Misra Rose

Answer 210

The tenants death from carbon monoxide poisoning was foreseeable if the gas fire was not maintained properly by the landlord

Answer 211

Bit pointless p47

Answer 212

An optometrist failed to spot a brain condition in a young boy during a routine eye test that could’ve been prevented However it was not reasonably foreseeable at the time of the breach (examination) that there was a serious and obvious risk of death

Answer 213

The negligence on the part of the Defendant must be “so gross” in the eyes of the jury as to be criminal

Answer 214

The jury had to decide whether D’s acts or omissions were so bad in the circumstances that it was criminal negligence

Answer 215

“Gross” was defined as negligence which went beyond a mere matter of civil compensation between subjects and showed such disregard for life and safety of others as to amount to a crime

Answer 216

During a routine knee operation, the patient suffered a perforated bowel. Despite many opportunities, D failed to perform life-saving procedures Truly exceptionally bad conduct

Answer 217

Defined in Common Law but charged under s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988

Answer 218

Actions or words which cause V to apprehend immediate unlawful force

Answer 219

Smith v Woking Police Ireland Tuberville v Savage

Answer 220

The act was looking at a woman in her nightclothes through a window

Answer 221

Silent phone calls

Answer 222

Words can prevent an assault by making it clear that violence is not going to be used

Answer 223

The effect on V is V expecting violence to take place. Threat must be of “immediate” violence, threats to inflict harm in the future isn’t assault.

Answer 224

Threat of violence is still considered immediate, even though D was still outside V’s home because V did not know what may happen next but it was likely to be of a violent nature

Answer 225

Intentionally casing V to apprehend immediate unlawful force OR recklessly causing V to apprehend immediate unlawful force