key principles of liablity

Question 1

omissions: A duty under a contract of employment
Railway

Answer 1

Pittwood HELD
D was liable for manslaughter by omission when he failed to fulfil his contractual duty by leaving the railway gates open.

Question 2

Omission: A duty to act for a person holding public office

police officer

Answer 2

Dytham HELD
he was liable for manslaughter by omission as he failed to try and stop the fight

Question 3

Omission: A duty which has been voluntarily accepted
Stones sister

Answer 3

Stone and Dobinson HELD
They were liable for gross negligence manslaughter by omission.

Question 4

Omission: Duties arising from relationships
Nelly

Answer 4

Both Ds liable for murder by omission

Question 5

Omission: A duty to limit harm caused were D has created a dangerous situation.
Tramp

Answer 5

Miller HELD
liable for arson by omission as he created a dangerous situation and had a duty to prevent or minimise it from happening.

Question 6

Omission:created by statue
Road

Answer 6

S.170 RTA 1988 -failure to stop and report an accident
s.6 RTA 1988 failure to provide a breath specimen.

Question 7

Causation in Fact
Cyanide

Answer 7

White HELD
he was acquitted of murder as but for his actions the V would have died anyways he was not the factual cause of the V death but was convicted of attempted murder.

Question 8

Causation in Law
pregnant

Answer 8

Pagett HELD
D was convicted as he was the morally responsible more than a minimal cause and he accelerated the death of his gf.

Question 9

Novus Actus Interveniens
Act of third party
antibiotic

Answer 9

Jordan HELD
The treatment described as palpably wrong the actions of the doctor was deemed grossly negligent and causation was CONTROVERSIALLY.

Question 10

NAI
Act of victim
jumped from car

Answer 10

Roberts HELD
causation was not removed as the V actions weee not considers grossly negligent but reasonable in the circumstance.

Question 11

A natural but unpredictable event

Answer 11

V injured causation removed if Injuries slight but made worse by natural unpredictable event and they could not prevent or predict it from happening.causation not removed if D could prevent event by taking reasonable steps in circumstance.

Question 12

Eggshell condition never break the chain of causation
blood transfusion

Answer 12

Blaue Held
court held that causation would not be removed as V religious beliefs were not an eggshell condition the D must take V as he finds them.

Question 13

Mens Rea
Direct intent
police constable

Answer 13

Mohan HELD
The court stated that direct intent is where the D does everything they can to bring desired result.

Question 14

Mens rea
oblique intent
3 month baby

Answer 14

woolin HELD
conviction reduced from murder to manslaughter judge said jury should only find intent if they feel sure that death or serious harm was a virtual certainty.

Question 15

mens rea
recklessness

Answer 15

Cunningham

Question 16

Negligence

Answer 16

no case 🥲

Question 17

Strict liability
drugs 💊

Answer 17

Sweet V Parsely Held
The COA decided teacher was liable as she didn’t need knowledge of drugs growing in her house beloved it was a strict liability offence.The HOL reversed this decision and said she did need knowledge so she wasn’t guilty.

Question 18

Transferred Malice
belt

Answer 18

Latimer HELD
the intention to strike the man transferred to the women.

Question 19

Transferred malice
Window 🪟

Answer 19

Pembliton HELD
His attention to assault another person could not be used as the MR for the damage wa used to the window

Question 20

coincidence of AR and MR
⛪️💒🔔

Answer 20

Church HELD
D was liable for Unlawful act manslaughter although during his initial AR he had no MR therefore courts continued this AR as series of events to when he threw her in the river.