Murder

Question 0

Pagette

Answer 0

Reasonably foreseeable - legal causation

Question 1

Gibbons v Proctor

Answer 1

Omission to act - AR

Question 2

White

Answer 2

But for test - factual causation

Question 3

Cheshire, Jordan / Smith

Answer 3

• Sole/ substantial cause
• in operation of original harm
  Cheshire - significantly contributing cause

Question 4

Fagan

Answer 4

Continuing act (AR - MR)

Question 5

Thabo Meli

Answer 5

Continuing act (MR - AR)

Question 6

Woollin

Answer 6

Was death or GBH virtually certain? - jury question
2 part test :
1) was death of GBH virtually certain (objective)
2) did the defendant foresee that death or GBH was virtually certain from his actions (subjective)

Question 7

Bland

Answer 7

Assumed responsibility (omission)

Question 8

Pittwood

Answer 8

Contractual obligation (omission)

Question 9

Miller

Answer 9

Creation of a dangerous situation (omission)

Question 10

Children and young persons act

Answer 10

Statutory obligation (omission)

Question 11

Break in chain of causation - Novus actus interveniens

Answer 11

Act of nature
Act of third party
Act of victim

If one ensues then break in causation and no liability

Question 12

Lord Mustill criticism on MR

Answer 12

Debate whether intention to kill or do grievous bodily harm should be MR -obiter dicta (AG ref no 3)

He was critical of GBH being enough for sufficient MR of murder also recognized by law commission which drafted that MR should include intention of causing GBH along with being aware that death may occur

Question 13

Blaue

Answer 13

Thin skull rule - Lawton LJ– take your victim as they come - will not constitute a novus actus and will not exonerate accused from actions

Question 14

R v Jordan

Answer 14

Held that medical treatment received was sole cause of death and was grossly negligent the chain of causation would be broken

Question 15

R v Smith

Answer 15

Accused’s conviction of murder was upheld even though dr failed to diagnose extent of wounds because original wound was still an operating cause of death and chain of causation was not broken

Question 16

Hancock and Shankland

Answer 16

That foresight of consequence is not conclusive proof of intention although may be evidence that jury can infer intention from

Question 17

Transferred Malice (Latimer)

Answer 17

MR for a particular offence against particular victim but she actually commits that crime against a different victim, the MR will be transferred to actual victim and def will be guilty of that offence

Question 18

R v Moloney

Answer 18

Only an intention to kill or cause GBH would be sufficient in establishing the MR - also jury question

Question 19

R v Savage

Answer 19

Assault- apprehension of immediate violence

Question 20

R v Corbett

Answer 20

Out drinking with friend of low intelligence and mental illness a number of things happened and in the end the friend got hit by a car which killed him
Appealed that chain of causation broken but appeal dismissed because actions of friend were within foreseeable range of event particularly given the intoxicated state he was in at the time