Important cases Flashcards
1
Q
M’Naghten (1843)
A
- legal test defining the defence of insanity
- “every man in presumed to be sane, to prove insanity, it must be clearly proved that the party accused was labouring under a disease of the mind, as to not know the nature of the act
- M’Naghten murdered Edward Drummond after mistaking him for someone
- “not guilty by reason of insanity” or “guilty but insane”
2
Q
Woollin (1998)
A
- Woollin test ( for intention ): intention is found if death or GBH is a virtual certainty of D’s actions and D appreciated that such was the case
- proves Mens rea
- Woollin threw and killed 3 moth old baby against a wall and tried to argue he meant to throw the baby into a pram
3
Q
Cunningham (1957)
A
- definition of malice for direct intent or subjective recklessness
- proves maliciousness behind the intent to prove that the defendant had foreseen the risk
- defendant removed gas meter to steal money, this caused a gas leaks in a neighbour’s house, killing his future mother in law
4
Q
R v Mitchell (1983)
A
- subjective recklessness and transferred malice
- man punched 72yr old man into 89yr old woman, woman died of broken bones
5
Q
R v Pagett (1983)
A
- “but for” test for legal causation
- Actus reus may not be the main cause just a significant one
6
Q
D v Miller (1983)
A
- omission
- arson for cigarette on mattress
7
Q
Mohan (1975)
A
- A decision to bring about, so far as it lies within the accused power (the prohibited consequence), no matter whether the accused desired the consequence
- intent is separate from want
8
Q
R v Hughes (2013)
A
- De mimimis - the minimum amount of harm (legal causation )
9
Q
R v Blaue
A
- Jehovah’s witness blood transfusion
- Thin skull rule
- take your victim as you find them
10
Q
R v Smith
A
- Poor medical treatment is unlikely to break the chain of causation
11
Q
R v Roberts
A
- Victim’s own act
- If foreseeable, it isn’t novus actus interveniens
- Victim’s act is unlikely to break the chain of causation
