Murder Flashcards
Pagette
Reasonably foreseeable - legal causation
Gibbons v Proctor
Omission to act - AR
White
But for test - factual causation
Cheshire, Jordan / Smith
- Sole/ substantial cause
- in operation of original harm
Cheshire - significantly contributing cause
Fagan
Continuing act (AR - MR)
Thabo Meli
Continuing act (MR - AR)
Woollin
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)
Bland
Assumed responsibility (omission)
Pittwood
Contractual obligation (omission)
Miller
Creation of a dangerous situation (omission)
Children and young persons act
Statutory obligation (omission)
Break in chain of causation - Novus actus interveniens
Act of nature
Act of third party
Act of victim
If one ensues then break in causation and no liability
Lord Mustill criticism on MR
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
Blaue
Thin skull rule - Lawton LJ– take your victim as they come - will not constitute a novus actus and will not exonerate accused from actions
R v Jordan
Held that medical treatment received was sole cause of death and was grossly negligent the chain of causation would be broken
R v Smith
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
Hancock and Shankland
That foresight of consequence is not conclusive proof of intention although may be evidence that jury can infer intention from
Transferred Malice (Latimer)
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
R v Moloney
Only an intention to kill or cause GBH would be sufficient in establishing the MR - also jury question
R v Savage
Assault- apprehension of immediate violence
R v Corbett
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
