Elements of an offence

Question 0

Attorney General’s Reference (No.2 1992)

Answer 0

Two-stage test for automatism 1. Whether or not there is in fact evidence of automatism or whether it is in fact less than automatic conduct and 2. Whether it is sane or insane

Question 1

Bratty v AG for NI, Mitchell

Answer 1

D’s conduct must be voluntary

Question 2

Attorney General’s Reference (No.2 1992)

Affirming Broome v Perkins

Answer 2

There must be a complete destruction of voluntary control and therefore any evidence of control will remove a plea of automatism e.g. hitting small cars but not big cars when driving

Question 3

Hill v Baxter

Answer 3

Being attacked by bees or having a fit while driving, for example, acts akin to a novus actus - for prosecution to prove voluntariness

Question 4

McNaghten

Answer 4

Every man is presumed sane unless the contrary is proved - show to the civil standard that he a. was completely defect of reason due to a disease of the mind and b. did not know the nature or quality of what he was doing or that he did not know that it was legally wrong

Question 5

Miller

Answer 5

Generally no liability for omissions - unless DOC

Also DOC if prior conduct

Question 6

Stone and Dobinson

Answer 6

Assumption of a duty of care - exception to liability by omission

Question 7

Pittwood

Answer 7

Exception to liability by omission - contractual

Question 8

s170 Road Traffic Act

Answer 8

duty to act imposed by statute

Question 9

Airedale NHS Trust v Bland

Answer 9

‘Cessation of a duty to act’ when someone is on life support, no viable chance of living, not a positive act so not euthanasia

Question 10

White (but for test)

Pagett (fault of D - chain of causation)

Answer 10

Must show factually and in law that D caused the offence

Question 11

Hughes

Answer 11

De minimis principle - D’s actions must not be so insignificant so as to have not actually caused

Question 12

Blaue

Answer 12

Thin skull rule - take your victim as you find him

Question 13

Latiff

Empress Car Co

Answer 13

3rd party has to intervene ‘free and deliberately’ to exploit the first crime to be a novus actus - where the party’s response is reasonable there is no NA
- Shows different grades of causation - here was higher

Question 14

Roberts

Answer 14

A victim’s contribution is not a NA unless it is ‘grossly unreasonable’ - ‘reasonable foreseeability of V doing that’

Question 15

Dear

Answer 15

A refusal to accept medical treatment is not a NA

Question 16

Kennedy (No.2)

Answer 16

Where a ‘free and informed’ actor injects themselves with illegal drugs, this will be a NA and D will not be liable for unlawful act manslaughter - NB irrelevant to gross neg. manslaughter

Question 17

Byram

Answer 17

If D finds the vein and puts the tip of the needle in then may be culpable

Question 18

Smith, Cheshire

Jordan (virtually irrelevant)

Answer 18

Only ‘abnormal’ or ‘grossly negligent’ treatment will constitute a NA - if the V had life threatening injuries on entering hospital then NA virtually irrelevant

Question 19

DPP v Smith

Answer 19

The irrebuttable presumption of intention if it was a natural and probable consequence of D’s actions here was overruled by s8 CJA 1967 -

Question 21

Moloney

Answer 21

L Bridge - intention - (i) Was death or serious injury a natural consequence of the act? (ii) Did D realise? If yes then proof of intent but not conclusive

Question 22

Hancock and Shankland

Answer 22

Moloney guidelines were defective - must add probability, the more probable the more foreseeable

Question 23

Nedrick, Wollin

Matthews and Alleyne (murder only)

Answer 23

Lord Lane CJ - jury question - ‘was it a virtual certainty and did D believe it as such?’ - M&A proof of intent but not obliged – Wollin affirming Ned but changing ‘infer’ to ‘find’ – now leading authority

Question 24

Cunningham

Answer 24

Subjective recklessness - the D himself must have realised

Question 25

Caldwell

Answer 25

Objective recklessness - ‘obvious to the ordinary, prudent person’ - very wide and potentially unjust

Question 26

G and Another

following reduction of Caldwell in Adomako, Savage, Satnam

Answer 26

L Bingham reverts back to subjective - (i) A circumstance where D is aware of a risk existing or potentially existing AND (ii) A result, which encompasses a risk, in the circumstances known to him it is unreasonable to take that risk

Question 27

Latimer

Pembliton

Answer 27

Transferred malice - D will be liable if he has MR and AR but the victim was different
Where D has the MR for one crime but commits the AR of another he must be acquitted

Question 28

Adomako

Answer 28

Negligence – usually for gross negligence manslaughter - an objective test - did it fall below the standard of the ordinary reasonable man

Question 29

Fagan

Answer 29

AR and MR must coincide – this is ‘continuing act’

Question 30

Le Brun

Answer 30

AR and MR must coincide – this is ‘one transaction’