General Principles and Driving Offences Flashcards
R v Larsonneur
The actus reus for some offences can be a state of affairs
R v Gibbins and Proctor
A person can be guilty by omission where they have a special relationship with the victim
R v Stone and Dobinson, R v Ruffell
A person can be guilty by omission where they have a voluntarily assumed a duty of care to the victim
R v Pittwood
A person can be guilty by omission where they have a contractual duty the victim
R v Miller
A person can be guilty by omission where they have a created a dangerous situation and not taken reasonable steps to remedy it
Hill v Baxter
Acts must generally be voluntary to constitute the actus reus of an offence
R v Moloney
Direct intention is where the outcome is the defendant’s ‘aim, purpose or desire’
R v Nedrick, R v Woolin
Indirect intention is where the outcome is ‘virtually certain’ to occur as a result of the action, and the defendant foresees this
R v Cunningham, R v G
Recklessness is where the defendant foresees a risk of the outcome and takes the risk without justification
R v Latimer
The defendant is still guilty of an offence if he has mens rea but hits the wrong target (transferred malice)
R v Pembliton
Transferred malice only holds in cases where the transferred mens rea and the actus reus are of the same offence
R v Le Brun, Thabo-Meli v R
Generally AR and MR must coincide for a defendant to be guilty, but they can be convicted if they form part of a continuous series of events
Road Traffic Act 1988 s3
Careless, and Inconsiderate Driving (driving without due care and attention - an ‘objective standard, impersonal and universal (McCrone v Riding))
Road Traffic Act 1988 s2
Dangerous Driving (Driving far below the standard of a careful and competent driver)
Road Traffic Act 1988 s5
Driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with alcohol concentration above prescribed limit - a strict liability offence
