General Elements of Criminal Liability Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

What test is used to determine factual causation in criminal law?

A

‘But-for’ test.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Give a criminal case that demonstrates the ‘but-for’ test.

A

R v. White - tried to poison his mother to gain inheritance but she died of a heart attack before the poison took effect - prosecution could not prove his actions were the factual cause of death.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is the rule for legal causation in criminal law?

A

Substantial and operative cause rule - ‘de minimis’ rule - d’s actions were more than a minimal cause.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Name a case that demonstrates legal causation in criminal law.

A

R v. Kimsey - d’s dangerous driving was more than a ‘slight or trifling’ cause.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Name the three possible breaks in the chain of causation.

A

1) Medical treatment.
2) The Victim
3) A third party.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What does medical treatment have to be to break the chain of causation.

A

‘Palpably wrong’.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Give a case where medical treatment was ‘palpably wrong’.

A

R v. Jordan - given a dose of drugs he was highly allergic to and died.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Give a case that considered the unreasonable actions of the victim.

A

R v. Roberts - V. jumped from a moving car when she thought d. was going to rape her - actions were no unreasonable.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Give a case where the actions of a third party were considered.

A

R v. Pagett - it was reasonable that the police would shoot back possibly killing V. who was a human shield.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Give a case that demonstrates the thin skull rule in criminal causation.

A

R v. Blaue - d. stabbed victim - she was a Jehovah’s witness and refused to have a blood transfusion and died.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What are the three types of mens rea?

A

1) Intention
2) Subjective reckless
3) Gross negligence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What are the two types of intention? Give a case for each type.

A

1) Direct intent - R v. Mohan

2) Oblique intent - R v. Woolin

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Define ‘oblique intent’.

A

The consequence was a virtual certainty of the actions of the defendant.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What is subjective reckless?

A

Where the d. takes an unjustifiable risk - R v. Cunningham.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Define gross negligence.

A

Where the d’s conduct was so bad it should be judged criminal (R v. Adomako).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Give a case that compliments transferred malice.

A

R v. Latimer - swung belt at intended victim and it hit a bystander - mens rea was transferred to the other person.

17
Q

What is the contemporaneity rule?

A

Where the actus reus and mens rea must coincide.

18
Q

What does the continuing act theory state?

A

The actus reus is considered to continue until the mens rea is developed - Fagan v. Metropolitan Police.

19
Q

What is the transaction theory?

A

Where there is no continuing act, but rather a series of events, the court will consider these acts to be one single act.

20
Q

Give a case that compliments the transaction theory.

A

Thabo Meli v. R - hit victim, thought he was dead though he was unconscious - he later dies when they pushed his body over the a cliff.