Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Criminal Law > Homocide Offences > Flashcards

Homocide Offences Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

What is the definition of murder under English law?

A

Murder is defined as ‘unlawful homicide with malice aforethought.’

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

What distinguishes murder from other forms of homicide?

A

Murder is distinguished by the defendant acting with a specific intent.

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

What is the mandatory sentence for murder?

A

Murder carries a mandatory life sentence pursuant to the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965.

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

What are the actus reus elements of murder?

A

The actus reus elements are ‘unlawful homicide.’

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

What is unlawful homicide as defined by Sir Edward Coke?

A

Unlawful homicide is defined as: ..unlawfully killing a reasonable person who is in being and under the King’s peace…

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

When is killing considered lawful?

A

Killing is lawful in cases such as killing enemy soldiers in battle, advancement of justice, and self-defence.

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

What is the factual cause in homicide?

A

‘But for’ the acts or omissions of the defendant, the relevant consequence would not have occurred, R v White [1910] 2 KB 124.

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

What is the legal cause in homicide?

A

The defendant’s act must be the ‘substantial’ cause of the prohibited harm, R v Hughes [2013] UKSC 56.

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

What does ‘a reasonable person in being’ mean?

A

The victim must be a human being; it is not possible to murder a corpse.

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

When does a person become ‘in being’?

A

A person is ‘in being’ when born alive and capable of independent life.

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

What did R v Reeves (1839) establish about being ‘in being’?

A

It was established that it was not necessary for the umbilical cord to have been cut.

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

What did R v Poulton (1832) clarify about being born alive?

A

The child must be fully expelled from the mother’s body and born alive.

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

What was the outcome of AG-Ref (No 3 of 1994)?

A

The child was not a live person when stabbed, so it could not be murder.

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

What is the mens rea for murder?

A

The mens rea for murder is ‘malice aforethought,’ which includes intention to kill or intention to cause grievous bodily harm.

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

What does grievous bodily harm mean?

A

Grievous bodily harm means ‘serious harm,’ Saunders [1985] Crim LR 230.

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

Is mercy killing a defense in English law?

A

No, mercy killing is no defense in English law (Inglis [2011] 1 WLR 1110).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What was the ruling in R v Vickers (1957)?

A

The Court of Appeal confirmed the mens rea of murder as intention to kill or intention to cause grievous bodily harm.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What is direct intent?

A

Direct intent is where the consequence is what the defendant, subjectively, aims to happen, R v Moloney [1985] 1 All ER 1025.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What are the conditions for finding oblique intent?

A

Death or serious injury must be a virtual certainty, and the defendant must appreciate that, R v Woollin [1999] AC 82.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What is the difference between motive and intention?

A

Motive is not the same as intention but can be used as evidence of intention, DPP v Chandler [1964] AC 763.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

What are the key elements of murder summarized?

A

Murder is the unlawful killing of a reasonable person who is in being under the King’s peace with malice aforethought.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

What is diminished responsibility?

A

Diminished responsibility is a partial defence that, if successful, results in a conviction for a lesser offence, known as voluntary manslaughter.

Homicide Act (HA) 1957, s2(3)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

What is the burden of proof for diminished responsibility?

A

The burden falls upon the defence to prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendant was acting under diminished responsibility.

s 2(2) HA 1957

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Is diminished responsibility available for attempted murder?

A

No, diminished responsibility is not available as a defence to a charge of attempted murder.

R v Campbell [1997] Crim LR 495

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

What does the Homicide Act 1957, s 2(1) state about diminished responsibility?

A

A person is not to be convicted of murder if suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning arising from a recognised medical condition that substantially impaired their ability to understand their conduct, form a rational judgment, or exercise self-control.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

What is meant by ‘abnormality of mental functioning’?

A

An abnormality of mental functioning is a state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that it is considered abnormal.

R v Byrne [1960] 2 QB 396

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

What must the abnormality of mental functioning arise from?

A

The abnormality must arise from a recognised medical condition, which can be diagnosed or undiagnosed at the time of the killing.

Alcohol Dependency Syndrome (ADS) is a recognised medical condition.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

What was the outcome of R v Dowds regarding voluntary intoxication?

A

The Court of Appeal concluded that voluntary intoxication cannot give rise to a defence of diminished responsibility, despite being recognised as a medical condition.

R v DOWDS [2011] EWCA Crim 281

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

What does ‘substantial impairment’ mean in the context of diminished responsibility?

A

Substantial impairment means something greater than ‘more than merely trivial’.

R v Golds [2016] UKSC 61

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

What are the three abilities that must be substantially impaired?

A

The abilities are to understand the nature of D’s conduct, to form a rational judgment, and to exercise self-control.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

What must the abnormality of mental functioning provide?

A

It must provide an explanation for D’s acts and omissions in the killing, and it must be a significant contributory factor.

s 2(1B) HA 1957

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

What did R v Brennan establish regarding expert medical evidence?

A

A judge should withdraw the murder charge from the jury when the expert medical evidence is uncontested or when there is no other evidence capable of rebutting it.

R v Brennan [2014] EWCA Crim 2387

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

What are the four elements of diminished responsibility?

A
  1. Abnormality of mental functioning.
  2. Arising from a recognised medical condition.
  3. Substantially impairing the defendant’s ability.
  4. Providing an explanation for D’s conduct.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

What is the significance of the Law Commission’s Report No 304?

A

It provided examples illustrating the impairment of abilities required for diminished responsibility, such as understanding conduct and forming rational judgments.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

What are the three key requirements of the loss of control defence?

A
  1. D must have lost self-control; 2. Due to the fear and/or anger qualifying trigger; 3. A normal person might have acted in a similar way to D.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

What type of defence is loss of control?

A

Loss of control is a partial defence to murder.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Who bears the burden of proof once the loss of control issue is raised?

A

The burden of proof rests with the prosecution.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

What must the prosecution prove for the loss of control defence to fail?

A

The prosecution needs to prove that only one of the components is absent.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

What is the significance of CJA 2009, s 54(6)?

A

It is for the judge to decide whether the defence can be put before the jury.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

What happens if the loss of control defence is successful?

A

The conviction is reduced from murder to voluntary manslaughter.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

What does CJA 2009, s 54(1) state regarding loss of self-control?

A

‘Where a person (‘D’) kills or is a party to the killing of another (‘V’), D is not to be convicted of murder if… D’s acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted from D’s loss of self-control…’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

What does R v Clinton, Parker and Evans [2012] EWCA Crim 2 clarify?

A

This defence has replaced the old law on provocation and should be applied with reference to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

What is required for the element of loss of self-control?

A

The defendant’s act or omission in killing must have resulted from a loss of self-control.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

Can loss of control be sudden?

A

The loss of control need not be sudden.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

What happens if D acts out of a ‘considered desire for revenge’?

A

The defence will be lost.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

What defines a qualifying trigger according to CJA 2009, s 55?

A

A loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger if subsections (3), (4), or (5) applies.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

What does CJA 2009, s 55(3) specify about fear?

A

D’s loss of self-control was attributable to D’s fear of serious violence from V against D or another identified person.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

What is the anger trigger?

A

The anger trigger consists of things said and/or done that constitute circumstances of an extremely grave nature and caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

What limitations exist for the anger trigger?

A

D cannot rely on the anger trigger if D incited it as an excuse to use violence or if the thing said/done constituted sexual infidelity.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

What does R v Acott [1996] Crim LR 664 illustrate?

A

There must be something actually said or done; circumstances alone are not enough.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

What does the phrase ‘constitutes circumstances of an extremely grave nature’ imply?

A

It must be determined objectively and should not be established easily.

52
Q

What does the CJA 2009, s 54(1)(c) provide about a normal person’s reaction?

A

A person of D’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint, might have reacted in the same or a similar way to D.

53
Q

What is the test for determining the proportionality of D’s reaction?

A

The jury will assess the gravity of the qualifying trigger and whether a normal person might have reacted similarly.

54
Q

What characteristics are excluded in assessing the normal person’s capacity for tolerance?

A

Bad temper, intoxication, extreme sensitivity, post-traumatic stress disorder, and personality disorder.

55
Q

What does R v Rejmanski [2017] EWCA Crim 2061 explain about mental disorders?

A

If a mental disorder is relevant to the defendant’s conduct, it can be considered, but not in assessing tolerance and self-restraint.

56
Q

What is the significance of R v Wilcocks [2016] EWCA Crim 2043?

A

The case illustrates that a personality disorder reducing a defendant’s capacity for tolerance and self-restraint does not affect the loss of control defense, except in certain circumstances.

Example: If a personality disorder made the defendant unusually likely to become angry, it is relevant for diminished responsibility but not for loss of control.

57
Q

What are the three aspects of loss of control?

A
  1. D lost self-control (not complete but unable to exercise self-restraint).
  2. D acted as a result of a qualifying trigger (fear or anger).
  3. A normal person might have reacted similarly.

Reference: R v Richens.

58
Q

What are the qualifying triggers for loss of control?

A
  1. Fear trigger: D fears serious violence.
  2. Anger trigger: things said/done that are extremely grave and cause D to feel seriously wronged.
59
Q

What are the limitations on the loss of control defense?

A

The defense cannot be used:
1. In an act of considered desire for revenge.
2. As an excuse to use violence.
3. If the thing said/done constituted sexual infidelity.
4. If charged with attempted murder.

60
Q

What does ‘considered desire for revenge’ imply?

A

The defense cannot be used if it stems from an act of revenge, particularly if there is evidence of planning.

Reference: Coroners and Justice Act (CJA) 2009, s 54(4).

61
Q

How does the law treat excuses for violence?

A

D’s fear of violence is disregarded if caused by something D incited to excuse violence.

Reference: CJA 2009, s 55(6).

62
Q

What is the stance on sexual infidelity as a qualifying trigger?

A

The defense cannot rely on sexual infidelity as a qualifying trigger, but it may be considered if it is not the sole trigger.

Reference: CJA 2009, s 55(6)(c).

63
Q

What did Lord Judge state in R v Clinton regarding sexual infidelity?

A

Sexual infidelity should be considered if it is integral to the facts and not the sole qualifying trigger.

Reference: R v Clinton, Parker and Evans [2012] EWCA Crim 2.

64
Q

Can loss of control be a defense for attempted murder?

A

No, loss of control is not a defense to attempted murder.

Reference: R v Campbell [1997] Crim LR 495.

65
Q

What are the two forms of intoxication in relation to murder?

A

Intoxication can negate the mens rea of murder or influence the special defences of loss of control and diminished responsibility.

66
Q

How can intoxication affect the mens rea for murder?

A

A defendant can use evidence of intoxication to show they did not form the mens rea of intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

67
Q

What must the prosecution prove in a murder case?

A

The prosecution must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the actus reus and the mens rea of murder.

68
Q

What was established in R v Asmelash regarding loss of control and intoxication?

A

The loss of control defence must be approached without reference to the defendant’s voluntary intoxication.

69
Q

What is the significance of R v Morhall in relation to intoxication and provocation?

A

The case clarifies that a defendant is not precluded from using the loss of control defence just because they are intoxicated.

70
Q

What must be considered when assessing diminished responsibility related to intoxication?

A

The courts consider whether the intoxication is independent of the abnormality or as a result of alcohol dependency syndrome (ADS).

71
Q

What did R v Dietschmann establish regarding intoxication and abnormality of mental functioning?

A

The jury must consider the effect of matters other than alcohol to determine if there was an abnormality of mental functioning.

72
Q

What did R v Dowds clarify about voluntary intoxication and diminished responsibility?

A

Voluntary acute intoxication cannot be relied upon to establish diminished responsibility.

73
Q

What is the role of alcohol dependency syndrome (ADS) in diminished responsibility?

A

If the defendant has ADS, the jury must consider whether it significantly impaired the defendant’s mental responsibility.

74
Q

What factors should the jury consider regarding ADS in diminished responsibility cases?

A

Factors include the extent and seriousness of the dependency, ability to control drinking, and capability of abstinence.

75
Q

What is unlawful act manslaughter?

A

Unlawful act manslaughter occurs when the accused lacks the mens rea for murder but kills someone while committing an unlawful act.

76
Q

What must the prosecution prove in unlawful act manslaughter?

A

The prosecution must prove that the defendant intentionally did an unlawful act that was dangerous and caused the victim’s death.

77
Q

What is the significance of R v Newbury and Jones in unlawful act manslaughter?

A

It established the modern definition of unlawful act manslaughter, requiring intentional, unlawful, and dangerous acts.

78
Q

What does it mean for an act to be unlawful in unlawful act manslaughter?

A

The act must be a criminal act, intrinsically unlawful, and must be an act rather than an omission.

79
Q

What did R v Lamb establish regarding unlawful acts?

A

The unlawful act must be proven to have been committed with the necessary mens rea; a practical joke that results in death may not qualify.

80
Q

What is the relationship between self-defence and unlawful act manslaughter as seen in R v Scarlett?

A

If the defendant used reasonable force in self-defence, there would be no unlawful act, and the manslaughter conviction could be quashed.

81
Q

What happens if a crime is prevented?

A

There would be no unlawful assault, and the defendant’s conviction for unlawful act manslaughter would be quashed.

82
Q

What is required for an unlawful act?

A

The unlawful act need not be serious and can simply be a common assault. It will typically be an offence against the person but can also include theft or criminal damage.

83
Q

What does it mean for an act to be intrinsically unlawful?

A

The unlawful act cannot be based on a lawful act that becomes unlawful only due to negligence or recklessness, such as driving.

84
Q

Which case established that the act must be intrinsically unlawful?

A

Andrews v Director of Public Prosecutions [1937] AC 576 established that the act must be intrinsically unlawful.

85
Q

What is required regarding the nature of the act in unlawful act manslaughter?

A

There must be an act rather than an omission; a person cannot be guilty of unlawful act manslaughter by an omission.

86
Q

What did R v Lowe [1973] QB 702 determine?

A

The Court of Appeal quashed the defendant’s manslaughter conviction due to a criminal omission to care for his daughter.

87
Q

What must the act be in terms of danger?

A

The act must be dangerous, meaning a sober and reasonable person would recognize it as likely to cause some harm.

88
Q

What did R v Church [1966] 1 QB 59 state about dangerousness?

A

The dangerousness of the act is judged from the viewpoint of a sober and reasonable person.

89
Q

What type of harm must result from the unlawful act?

A

The type of harm must be physical, not emotional, although shock that produces physical effects can be considered harm.

90
Q

What did R v Dawson (1985) state about the type of harm?

A

The Court of Appeal stated that the harm must be physical, but shock can also be considered harm.

91
Q

What did R v JM & SM (2012) clarify about foreseeability?

A

The type of harm a reasonable person would foresee does not have to be the harm that actually occurred.

92
Q

How is the dangerousness of an act assessed?

A

It is assessed based on the knowledge a sober and reasonable person would have had if they were in the accused’s position.

93
Q

What was the outcome of R v Dawson regarding knowledge of the victim’s condition?

A

The Court of Appeal overturned the conviction because the jury was misdirected about the reasonable person’s knowledge of the victim’s heart condition.

94
Q

What did R v Watson [1989] establish about awareness during the commission of an offence?

A

A defendant can become liable if they become aware of facts during the commission of the offence that make the act dangerous.

95
Q

What was the significance of R v Ball [1989] in terms of knowledge?

A

The reasonable person is assumed to have any special knowledge that the defendant has.

96
Q

What is required for causation in unlawful act manslaughter?

A

The unlawful act must have both factually and legally caused the death of the victim.

97
Q

What is factual causation?

A

Factual causation requires proving that ‘but for’ the acts or omissions of the accused, the consequence would not have occurred.

98
Q

What is legal causation?

A

Legal causation requires that the defendant be the ‘operating and substantial’ cause of the prohibited consequence.

99
Q

What did R v Cato [1976] establish regarding drug administration?

A

Cato was convicted of manslaughter for injecting the deceased with heroin, as consent was no defense.

100
Q

What did R v Kennedy [2007] clarify about drug supply?

A

In cases where a fully-informed adult self-administers drugs, the supplier is not guilty of manslaughter.

101
Q

What is the summary of the elements of unlawful act manslaughter?

A

The prosecution must prove that the defendant intentionally did an unlawful act that caused the death of a person.

102
Q

What is gross negligence manslaughter?

A

Gross negligence manslaughter occurs when a defendant breaches a duty of care owed to a victim, resulting in death. This can be through a positive act or omission that is so severe it warrants a criminal charge.

103
Q

Is a criminal act required for gross negligence manslaughter?

A

No, unlike unlawful act manslaughter, there is no requirement for the defendant to be involved in a criminal act.

104
Q

What are the basic requirements for gross negligence manslaughter as laid down in R v Adomako?

A
  1. Existence of a duty of care; 2. Breach of that duty; 3. Breach causes death; 4. There was a risk of death; 5. Breach was so bad as to amount to gross negligence.
105
Q

What is meant by ‘duty of care’ in gross negligence manslaughter?

A

Duty of care refers to the legal obligation to avoid causing harm to others where harm is foreseeable.

106
Q

What case established the classic definition of negligence in relation to manslaughter?

A

R v Bateman (1925) established that negligence must show such disregard for life and safety as to amount to a crime against the State.

107
Q

What did Lord Atkin state in Andrews v DPP regarding negligence?

A

Lord Atkin stated that the degree of negligence is close to reckless but not entirely the same, indicating that recklessness suggests indifference to risk.

108
Q

What was the outcome of R v Adomako?

A

In R v Adomako, the defendant was convicted of manslaughter for failing to notice a dislodged oxygen tube during surgery, leading to the patient’s death.

109
Q

What is the significance of R v Singh in establishing duty of care?

A

In R v Singh, the court found that the maintenance man had a duty of care towards the tenants, as he was responsible for their safety.

110
Q

What did the Court of Appeal conclude in R v Wacker regarding duty of care?

A

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, stating that the law of negligence applies even in cases involving criminal enterprises.

111
Q

What are the two aspects of causation in gross negligence manslaughter?

A
  1. Factual causation: ‘but for’ the defendant’s actions, the consequence would not have occurred. 2. Legal causation: the defendant must be the ‘operating and substantial’ cause of the consequence.
112
Q

What did R v Misra and Srivastava confirm about the risk of death?

A

The case confirmed that there must be an obvious and serious risk of death, not merely of injury.

113
Q

What was the ruling in R v Rose regarding the risk of death?

A

The Court of Appeal overturned Rose’s conviction, stating that there was no obvious and serious risk of death at the time of the breach of duty.

114
Q

How did the court differentiate between civil negligence and criminal gross negligence in R v Litchfield?

A

The court noted that the captain’s conduct was so bad that it could be condemned as criminal, emphasizing the obvious and serious risk he created.

115
Q

What themes can guide the application of gross negligence law?

A
  1. Series of acts/omissions may indicate gross negligence. 2. A single act can be grossly negligent. 3. Mistakes caused by others may mitigate liability. 4. Personal responsibility is crucial.
116
Q

What may be a reason for not convicting in cases of gross negligence?

A

The involvement of others in the circumstances leading up to the death, as seen in Prentice & Sullman.

117
Q

Can a defendant be grossly negligent even if others are responsible?

A

Yes, if the defendant has a clear personal responsibility and the ability to discharge it, as illustrated in Singh.

118
Q

What should the jury consider regarding the defendant’s knowledge or experience?

A

If the defendant has knowledge/experience that alerts them to danger, it may be a helpful fact for the jury to consider, contrasting Singh and Litchfield with Prentice & Sullman.

119
Q

Is there a requirement for a mental state in gross negligence cases?

A

No, there is no requirement for any mental state, but the defendant’s state of mind can be relevant, as shown in Litchfield.

120
Q

What indicates a likelihood of conviction regarding risk of death?

A

If someone has seen a high risk of death or has a ‘couldn’t care less’ attitude towards it, they are highly likely to be convicted.

121
Q

How can a defendant’s state of mind work in their favor?

A

If the defendant genuinely did not believe there was a risk, this can be taken into account by the court.

122
Q

What is the existence of a duty of care?

A

Everyone has a general duty to take care to avoid injury by a positive act to their neighbour. Liability can arise for an omission if the defendant is under a specific duty to act.

123
Q

What constitutes a breach of duty?

A

The question is whether the defendant’s acts fell below the standard expected of a reasonable person, who is attributed with any special skill used by the defendant.

124
Q

What must be established regarding causation in gross negligence?

A

Both factual and legal causation principles apply to establish that the breach causes death.

125
Q

What defines a risk of death in gross negligence cases?

A

There must be an obvious and serious risk not merely of injury or serious injury, but of death, as stated in Singh.

126
Q

What constitutes ‘gross negligence’?

A

The breach of duty must be so bad, considering the risk of death, that it amounts to a criminal act or omission, as described in Adomako.

Criminal Law (7 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions