Criminal law — Actus Reus to strict liability Flashcards
bomboclatt
When can someone be liable for an omission
When they have a duty to act
R v Pitwood
Contractual duty
- Failed to shut a railway crossing gate, resulted in someone’s death
R v Dytham
Misconduct in a public office
- He was required to act as he was a uniformed police officer and failed to stop the bouncer from being kicked to death
R v Miller
Creating a dangerous situation/ failure to minimize harmful consequences of own act
- Fell asleep with a lit cigarette, created a small fire on the mattress, woke up and moved to another room to go back to sleep
- Didn’t put out the fire
- Owed a duty to call the fire brigade
R v Stone & Dobinson
Voluntary acceptance of duty
- Fanny starved to death after D’s agreed to look after her
R v Gibbons v Proctor
Special relationship
- A father and step mother were liable for the death of their child who had starved to death
Fagan v MPC
Continuing act
- D drove onto a policeman’s foot and refused to move
When will causation need to be established?
In result based crimes, or when there is time between the act and result
What is factual causation?
When the consequence would not have happened “but for” the D’s act
White
D tried to poison his mother, she died of a heart attack before it would work
- Held: Not guilty of murder, his actions had not caused death
- Liable for attempted murder
Pagett
Human shield. Used pregnant girlfriend as a human shield, was charged with manslaughter. Appealed against the conviction on the issue of causation
- Conviction upheld.
- The firing at the police officers caused them to fire back. In firing back the police officers were acting in self -defence. His using the girl as a shield caused her death.
What is legal causation?
Is the D’s act the operating and substantial cause
- Does not mean it was the only cause!
Benge
Defendant was the foreman of a group of plate-layers. He misread the railway timetable so that the track was up at the time the train was due. Realised his error and placed a signal man with a flag 540 yards up the line. Statutory regulation stated a distance of atleast 1000 meters. Train driver wasnt paying attention and didn’t see. Several died.
- Need not be the only cause
-In criminal law, a defendant’s actions do not need to be the only cause of the proscribed outcome. They need only be a substantial cause.
Blaue
D stabbed V who was a Jehovah’s witness. She refused a blood transfusion and died as a result.
- Thin skull rule. Take the victim as you find them
For example, if the defendant’s action of punching the victim leads to death because of a rare bone disease that the victim has (whereas it would usually only cause mild injury) the defendant cannot rely on this as a defence, even if he was unaware of the victim’s condition.
Haywood
D chased his wife out the house, she collapsed and died.
- Thin skull rule
To establish causation, what can’t the chain be broken by?
A Novus Actus Interveniens
Jordan
D stabbed V, wound was almost healed when the doctors gave him an incorrect injection and he died
- Held: Not guilty of murder as the wound was not the “operating and substantial” cause of death as the medical treatment was “palpably wrong”
- 3rd party
Smith
D stabbed V and punctured his lung. V died and D was charged with murder. D argued he wasn’t liable as,
- On the way to the hospital he was dropped twice; Doctor failed to realize the severity of his injuries; Treatment given was poor “might well have affected his chances of recovery”
- Held: guilty - the stabbing was the “operating and substantial” cause of death
Malcherek
V was attacked so badly she was put on life support. Doctors turned off the machine
- Held: D guilty of murder even though it was separate act that killed her because the wounds were still the “operating and substantial” cause
Even where doctors deliberately cause death it will not break the chain of causation
Cheshire
D shot V in the stomach and thigh. V was taken to hospital where he was operated on and developed breathing difficulties. Hospital gave V a tracheotomy. Several weeks later his wounds were healing and no longer life threatening, however, he continued to have breathing difficulty and died from complications arising from the tracheotomy.
- Held: D guilty of murder. Intervening medical treatment could only be regarded as excluding the responsibility of the defendant if it was so independent of the defendant’s act and so potent in causing the death, that the jury regard the defendant’s acts as insignificant. Since the defendant had shot the victim this could not be regarded as insignificant.
Was the act “wholly independent”
Roberts
V jumped from car to avoid sexual advances from D.
- Held: D liable for injuries
A victims own act wont break the chain of causation if it is a “foreseeable and proportionate response” to the D’s action.
