EXAM NOTES: Causation and Mens Rea Flashcards
Explain factual causation
- R v White - but for test
- R v Dyson - causing early/premature death satisfies but for test
What is the basic rule of legal causation
- D must be ‘an operating and substantial cause’ R v Pagett, R v Smith, R v Cheshire
What is an ‘operating’ cause
R v Benge (foreman of railway work which caused a train crash)
- just one of the reasons for death - can be many
what is a ‘substantial’ cause?
R v Cato one that is more than slight or trifling
When can third party intervention break the chain of causation?
R v Pagett (girlfriend used as human shield)
- where it is “free deliberate and informed”
When can medical negligence break the chain of causation?
1) R v Smith - where it is so serious as to make the wound a part of a history; a new cause
2) R v Cheshire - where it is so important that it renders D’s act insignificant
What if the victim is particularly vulnerable?
R v Hayward
1) thin skull rule
2) take your victim as you find him
When can V’s actions break the chain of causation?
1) R v Mackie if they are unforeseeable by the reasonable man
2) R v Williams & Davis+ R v Roberts- if they are “so daft” no reasonable person could foresee them
what can be considered when deciding if V’s actions were “so daft” as to be unforeseeable?
R v Williams & Davis + R v Roberts
1) bear in mind any particular characteristics of the victim
2) make allowances for them acting in the heat of the moment
3) it could be reasonably foreseeable for D’s acts to cause V’s suicide and would therefore not be a NAI
What is the rule in refusal of treatment cases?
1) R v Holland tetanus from a cut finger - no NIA because the wound was the cause of death
2) R v Dear - suicide through reopening wounds - no NIA because the wound was the cause of death
What is the general rule relating to omissions?
R v WM Smith - no general duty to act
What is the process for a conviction through an omission?
1) D is under a legal duty to act
2) D breaches that duty
3) The breach caused the AR
4) (If necessary for the offence) D had the MR
5) The crime can be committed by omission
give an example of a legal duty to act
R v Gibbons and Proctor
- Parent owes a legal duty to act to care for their child
- Someone ‘looking after’ a family can voluntarily assume a binding duty of care
Give an example of a breach of contractual duty to act
R v Pittwood
Give an example of a breach of public duty
R v Dytham - policeman watching someone get kicked to death
Give an example of someone creating the dangerous situation
R v Miller - fell asleep holding a fag
When might someone have a duty to act?
1) legal duty
2) contractual duty
3) public duty
4) created the situation
what is the rule for doctors and omissions?
Airedale trust v Bland - can be lawful for doctors to allow patients to die in some situations
What is the general rule for how courts should handle intention?
R v Moloney - give it its normal meaning
What is oblique intention?
R v Moloney - special instructions should be given where the:
!) consequence is not D’s direct purpose but rather a side effect that
2) he accepts as a natural consequence of his actions
What is the rule for oblique intention?
R v Woollin:
1) Death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty due to D’s actions
2) D appreciated that this was the case
What is the general test for recklessness?
R v Cunningham
1) D is aware of the risk
2) D takes the risk anyway
What is the alternative test for recklessness and when is it used?
R v G and Another – reckless criminal damage
1) When committing the AR, D was subjectively aware of the risk
2) In the circumstances known to D it was objectively unreasonable for him to take the risk
what happens if D tries to shoot U and misses, hitting V?
1) R v Latimer – malice against one person can be transferred from the intended party to the actual party (Tried to hit X with a belt and instead harmed Y)
2) R v Mitchell ¬– transferred malice applies to murder (X was struck and fell on Y, who died)
3) R v Pembilton – need the requisite MR for the crime caused (D had MR to hit someone with a stone, not to break a window)
what are the two theories that stretch coincidence of MR and AR?
- continuing act theory
- continuing transaction theory
explain what a continuing act is
Fagan v Met Police Commissioner – continuing act theory; the MR just has to happen at some point while the AR is continuing
explain what a continuing transaction is?
Thabo Meli – a series of acts constituted one continuing transaction so the MR was just needed at one point in the sequence
- Thought they’d killed V and rolled him off a cliff, where he died of exposure
- R v Le Brun - continues while D is attempting to cover up his crime
What if it is unclear which of D’s acts caused the death?
AG Ref (No 4 of 1980) - if it is unclear which of D’s acts caused the AR he must have the MR during all of them - D strangled stabbed and cut V
how does the defence of mistake work?
R v Bailey – ignorance of the law is no excuse
what is the general rule for intoxication?
- intoxication MAY allow D to negate the MR for a crime of specific intent ONLY
- but R v Kingston a drunken intent is still intent
Give a definition of intent
Smith & Hogan - ‘direct aim or purpose’
