Criminal Law Flashcards
What is the definition of causation in criminal law?
Causation refers to the requirement that there must be a causal link between the defendant’s conduct and the prohibited consequence (usually harm or death) for criminal liability to attach. It involves both factual and legal causation.
What is the definition of causation in criminal law?
Causation refers to the requirement that there must be a causal link between the defendant’s conduct and the prohibited consequence (usually harm or death) for criminal liability to attach. It involves both factual and legal causation.
What is factual causation, and how is it determined?
Factual causation is determined using the “but for” test, which asks whether the result would have occurred but for the defendant’s conduct. If the answer is no, factual causation is established.
What is factual causation, and how is it determined?
Factual causation is determined using the “but for” test, which asks whether the result would have occurred but for the defendant’s conduct. If the answer is no, factual causation is established.
What is legal causation in criminal law?
Legal causation involves determining whether the defendant’s act is sufficiently connected to the result in law. It requires that the defendant’s conduct be a substantial and operating cause of the consequence.
What is legal causation in criminal law?
Legal causation involves determining whether the defendant’s act is sufficiently connected to the result in law. It requires that the defendant’s conduct be a substantial and operating cause of the consequence.
What is the significance of the case R v White (1910) in understanding factual causation?
In R v White, the defendant poisoned his mother’s drink, but she died of a heart attack before consuming it. The court held that the defendant was not the factual cause of death, illustrating that if the result would have occurred regardless of the defendant’s actions, factual causation is not established.
What is the significance of the case R v White (1910) in understanding factual causation?
In R v White, the defendant poisoned his mother’s drink, but she died of a heart attack before consuming it. The court held that the defendant was not the factual cause of death, illustrating that if the result would have occurred regardless of the defendant’s actions, factual causation is not established.
How does the case R v Smith (1959) illustrate legal causation?
In R v Smith, the defendant stabbed the victim, who later died due to complications from medical treatment. The court held that the original wound was still an operating and substantial cause of death, and thus, legal causation was established.
How does the case R v Smith (1959) illustrate legal causation?
In R v Smith, the defendant stabbed the victim, who later died due to complications from medical treatment. The court held that the original wound was still an operating and substantial cause of death, and thus, legal causation was established.
What does Section 13(7) of the Criminal Offences Act (Act 29) state about causation?
Section 13(7) provides that an entity causes an event if their conduct is a substantial and operating cause of the event.
What does Section 13(7) of the Criminal Offences Act (Act 29) state about causation?
Section 13(7) provides that an entity causes an event if their conduct is a substantial and operating cause of the event.
Explain the principle established in R v Michael (1840) regarding causation through an involuntary agent.
In R v Michael, the defendant administered poison to a child, intending to harm the child’s mother. The child drank the poison and died. The court held that the defendant was liable for the child’s death, establishing that causing an event through an involuntary agent does not absolve liability.
Explain the principle established in R v Michael (1840) regarding causation through an involuntary agent.
In R v Michael, the defendant administered poison to a child, intending to harm the child’s mother. The child drank the poison and died. The court held that the defendant was liable for the child’s death, establishing that causing an event through an involuntary agent does not absolve liability.
What is joint causation as per Section 13(3) of the Criminal Offences Act?
Section 13(3) addresses situations where multiple entities contribute to causing an event. Each entity is considered to have caused the event if their conduct was a substantial and operating cause.
What is joint causation as per Section 13(3) of the Criminal Offences Act?
Section 13(3) addresses situations where multiple entities contribute to causing an event. Each entity is considered to have caused the event if their conduct was a substantial and operating cause.
Define ‘novus actus interveniens’ in the context of causation.
‘Novus actus interveniens’ refers to a new intervening act that breaks the chain of causation between the defendant’s conduct and the consequence, potentially absolving the defendant of liability if the intervening act was unforeseeable and independent.
Define ‘novus actus interveniens’ in the context of causation.
‘Novus actus interveniens’ refers to a new intervening act that breaks the chain of causation between the defendant’s conduct and the consequence, potentially absolving the defendant of liability if the intervening act was unforeseeable and independent.
How does Section 64A of the Criminal Offences Act relate to causing death?
Section 64A provides that an entity causes death to occur sooner if their conduct accelerates the victim’s death, even if the victim would have died eventually.
How does Section 64A of the Criminal Offences Act relate to causing death?
Section 64A provides that an entity causes death to occur sooner if their conduct accelerates the victim’s death, even if the victim would have died eventually.
What is the ‘thin skull’ rule as per Section 64B, and how does R v Hayforge (1908) illustrate it?
The ‘thin skull’ rule states that a defendant must take their victim as they find them, including any pre-existing conditions. In R v Hayforge, the defendant’s assault led to the death of a victim with a pre-existing condition, and the defendant was held liable for the full extent of the harm.
What is the ‘thin skull’ rule as per Section 64B, and how does R v Hayforge (1908) illustrate it?
The ‘thin skull’ rule states that a defendant must take their victim as they find them, including any pre-existing conditions. In R v Hayforge, the defendant’s assault led to the death of a victim with a pre-existing condition, and the defendant was held liable for the full extent of the harm.
Discuss the significance of R v Blaue (1975) in understanding the ‘thin skull’ rule.
In R v Blaue, the victim refused a blood transfusion due to religious beliefs after being stabbed by the defendant. The court held that the defendant was liable for the death, reinforcing that defendants must take their victims as they find them, including their beliefs.
Discuss the significance of R v Blaue (1975) in understanding the ‘thin skull’ rule.
In R v Blaue, the victim refused a blood transfusion due to religious beliefs after being stabbed by the defendant. The court held that the defendant was liable for the death, reinforcing that defendants must take their victims as they find them, including their beliefs.
