Crime Case Law Flashcards
R V White
AR
Factual causation
The “but for” test
RV Dalloway
AR
Legal causation
Did the defendant’s culpable act cause the death?
Legal causation
Is there a Novus actus intervenes
1- intervention by the third party
2- intervention by the third party:non medical negligence
3-thin skull rule
4-act of victim : refusal of treatment
5-act of victim:” fight and fright”
Rv Smith
AR
Legal causation
Actus novus intervenes
Intervention by the third party: medical negligence
- was the original wound an operating and substantial cause
- is the second cause so overwhelming as to make the first one part of history
R v Cheshire
AR
legal causation
Actus novus intervenes
Intervention by the third party :
medical negligence
Was the negligent treatment so independent of his acts and in itself so potent in causing the death that the jury regard the contribution made by the accused acts as insignificant
R v Pagett
AR
Legal causation
novus actus intervene
Intervention by the third party
Non medical negligence
Is Ds action the operating and substantial cause of the death
R v Hayward
The thin skull rule
Take your victim as you receive them
R v Blaue
Act of the victim ; refusing the medical treatment
R v Mackie
AR
Legal causation
Actus novus intervenes
Act of victim
Fright and flight
Was the act of victim something that could reasonably have been foreseen as the consequence of what the defendant was saying or doing!?
R v William & Davies
AR
Legal causation
Act of victim: fright and flight
The jury should bear in mind any particular characteristics of the victim and the fact that in the agony of the moment he may act without thought and deliberation
R v Girdler
AR
Legal causation
if it’s a new situation you should use the reasonable foreseeability test
R v Kimsey
The cause is more than minimal or trifling contributions
Rv coke
AR for murder
Unlawfully killing a reasonable person who is being under the kings peace
R v Robert
AR
NAI
fright and flight
Rv Hayward
The thin skull rule
AR
Legal causation
