Criminal Law Tests Flashcards
But For Test
But for…the intervention of the D defendant would X have occured?
The Harm Principle
We could criminalise things that cause harm to others
The Woolin Test
a. The defendant committed murder or GBH…which was foreseen by him as a likely result of his act
b. that he was deemed to have foreseen the risk, a reasonable person in his position would have seen
Feinberg (1984)
“Harm to others” identifies harm as set-back to interests that is the consequences of qrongful acts of others
The Principle of legality
Parliament must confront what it doing and accept the political cost
Adomako Test
- Duty of care owed to the deceased
- It was breached by the accused (D)
- The breach resulted in death
- The breach can be characterised as gross negligence and therefore a crime
The Correspondence Principle
The different elements of a crime must correspond with one another. You should be responsible for what you do and what you choose/aim to do
The ‘thin ice’ principle
The ‘thin ice’ principle
Citizens skate on thin ice when they engage in conduct that has been arguably been prohibited by the legislature, so they should not complain if they are ultimately convicted or prosecuted
Fair Labelling Principle
The label applied to an offender, should relate directly to what he has done (The symbolism of the law)
R v Dalloway (1847) 2 Cox 273 - Casuation
Legal causation requires that the harm must result from a culpable act
Cancels Dalloway - R v Williams [2011] 1 WLR 588
The Dalloways principle of legal causation requiring a culpable act for harm is cancelled where the offence is one of strict liability (Williams)
R v Benge (1865) - Sole cause of the resulting harm
The defendants actions need not be the sole cause of the resulting harm, but it must be more than minimal
Novus Actus Interveniens
New intervening act which breaks the chain of causation. Different tests apply depending on the intervening party.
Novus Actus Interveniens (1. Third party)
The act of a third party will generally break the chain of causation unless the action was foreseeable. R v Pagett (1983)
Novus Actus Interveniens (2. The act of the Victim)
Where the act is of the victim, the chain of causation will not be broken unless the victims actions are disproportionate or unreasonable
Novus Actus Interveniens (3. Medical Assistance)
Where medical intervention contributes to death, the courts have been inconsistent in their approach.
R v Jordan (1956) 40 Cr. App
R v Smith [1959] 2 QB 35
R v Cheshire [1991] 1 WLR 844
Thin Skull Rule (Egg-shell-skull)
Under this rule, the defendant must take his victim as he finds him. this means is he has a particularly vulnerable, he is fully liable for the consequences to them even if an ordinary person would not have suffered such severe consequences, irrespective of whether D was aware or not. For example if D commits a minor assault, and V has a heart attack and in the event of death, D is still fully liable
Thin skull rule also applies where the victim has refused…
…medical treatment which would have saved them. R v Holland (1841) and R v Blaue [1975]
Causation Test - Factual/Legal
Factual: ‘but for’ D’s conduct would the consequence have occurred?
Legal: is the outcome one D should be considered responsible for?
Moloney test for direct intention
Judge should avoid elaboration, leave jury to good sense
Duff’s test of failure
“D intends a consequence of his action if he acts with the aim of producing that consequence”
Hyam test for intention
Did the mens rea of intention require an intention to kill or only a foresight of a serious risk of death or serious bodily harm being caused?
Did Hyam have the requisite intention to commit murder?
Woolin two stage test
- Objective: was the outcome a virtually certain consequence of D’s actions?
- Subjective: aware that the outcome was a virtual certainty of their actions?
