Criminal Law Basics

Question 1

When can medical negligence be used

Answer 1

R v Cheshire

‘Medical negligence won’t break the chain unless it’s extraordinary or unusual’

Question 2

Victims own actions

Answer 2

R v Roberts

‘The victims own actions do not break the chain if they are ‘reasonably foreseeable’

Question 3

Thin Skull Rule

Answer 3

’D must take V as found; if V has a pre-existing vulnerability, this does not break the chain’

R v Blaue

Question 4

Factual causation -the ‘but for’ test

Answer 4

But for D’s conduct V would not have…

R v White

Question 5

Legal Causation

Answer 5

D contributed to the result in a more than minimal way.

D’s (offence) was the operating and substantial cause of V’s injuries (Smith)

Question 6

Novus Actus Interveniens

Answer 6

New intervening act of a third party
Won’t break the chain if D’s conduct is a more than minimal cause of the result (R v Smith)

Operating and Substantial cause of V’s injury

Question 7

Subjective recklessness

R v Cunningham

Answer 7

D must realise there is a risk of the consequence happening AND decide to take that risk anyway

Question 8

Mens Rea - Oblique intent

R v Woolin

Answer 8

The result must be of a virtual certainty AND

D must realise this is so

Question 9

Mens Rea - Direct intent

R v Mohan

Answer 9

D has a desired outcome
D aims/desires…
Calculated and Deliberate

Question 10

Transferred Malice

R v Latimer

Answer 10

D can be guilty if he has the Mens Rea to commit a similar crime but against a different V

The Mens Rea can be transferred from the intended victim to the actual victim.

R v Latimer

Question 11

R v Gibbins and Proctor (Omission exception)

Answer 11

Parents guilty of murder as they failed to act + owed a Duty of C as parents.

Question 11

R v Stone and Dobinson (Omission exception)

Answer 11

convicted of manslaughter as they had voluntarily undertaken the duty of care for her and failed to do so or even summon help

Question 13

R v Dytham (Omission exception)

Answer 13

Officer guilty as he had a failure to act as he had duty of a police officer (witnessing a crime) to protect the public.

Question 14

R v Miller (Omission exception)

Answer 14

R v Miller - guilty of arson as he had failed to act and had a duty to do so as he had created a dangerous situation and left it.

Question 15

R v Pittwood (Omission exception)

Answer 15

Convicted of manslaughter as they had voluntarily undertaken the duty of care for her and failed to do so or even summon help