Fault (concepts) Flashcards
have you defined fault?
fault means the d should be able to contemplate the harm hat their actions may cause, and should therefore aim to avoid such actions, refers to mental state (MR)
Have you discussed the different levels of fault in criminal law with case examples?
Murder- intention required is “an intention to kill or cause GBH” (R v Mohan)
recklessness which involves D has realised there is a risk of consequence occurring but has still decided to go through with it- Cunningham (assault)
GNM- beyond a matter of mere compensation as shown such a disregard for life and safety of others- (BATEMAN)
Have you noted the difference between fault liability and strict liability?
fault liability requires some intention.
Have you identified examples of strict liability in criminal law with a case and fault liability?
strict liability is found in regulatory offences- more concerned with protecting the public (regulations in food)
Not necessary to prove MR.
pharmaceutical society of GB v Storkwain
fault liability are examples such as GBH s18 or murder
Have you discussed fault in civil law with examples?
in civil law, foreseeable harm is appropriate to all aspects of negligence.
negligence is judged on what a reasonable man would have foreseen
(Donaghue v Stevenson)
The D must owe a duty of care, which is below the standards of care appropriate to the duty.
Have you identified examples of strict liability in tort?
a form of S.L to deal with dangerous activities and dangerous substances was found in the case of Rylands v Fletcher
consumer protection act 1987
S.2 (1)- any damage is caused by defect, anyone who it applies to will be liable for damage
have you discussed defences available to reduce fault or eliminate fault for the defendant?
genuine mistake- eliminate fault entirely
WILLIAMS- (protection of others)
diminished responsibility set in homicide act 1957- reduces liability
FOR MOCK: Factual causation and how it links to fault
have to prove D caused the injury
2 tests -
factual causation called the but for test
R v Pagett
if it wasn’t for D’s actions then girlfriend would not have died
to prove factual causation, the D has to be at fault, their actions have to have caused the consequences, and if it wasn’t there action, it would not have happened.
Legal causation and how it links to fault?
legal causation
more than minimal- Kimsey
breaking the chain of causation
palpably wrong medical treatment- not Ds actions that have caused the death, causation broken, as the fault does not reside with the D anymore - (R v Jordan)
thin skull rule- BLAU- still at fault as the V would not have been put in a situation like that if it was not for D’s actions
V’s own acts- ROBERTS
the Vs actions were not proportionate to the threat, harm caused so far from what would have been caused by D that fault is not on D
