Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Criminal Law > OAPA - Main cases > Flashcards

OAPA - Main cases Flashcards

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

R v Mallot

A
  • ‘one punch manslaughter’
  • causation
  • D’s act still causes death if there is no subsequent human intervention even if result is very unlikely
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

R v Cheshire

A

Subsequent acts/omissions by other people do not render D’s act too remote if D’s act remains an operative cause
(important in medical treatment)

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

R v Blaue

A

V refusing treatment does not render D’s act too remote (NOT A NOVUS ACTUS)

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

R v Roberts

A

V’s act is not a novus actus and does not render D’s act too remote if it was a reasonable and foreseeable consequence of D’s actions

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

R v Lewis

A

Here, taxi driver did not give chase - V’s action of running into the road was not a reasonable and foreseeable consequence of D’s actions so it renders D’s act remote

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

R v McNechie

A
  • Beat up an old man
  • in treaments, found an ulcer BUT could not operate because of the beating
  • D’s act was still an operative cause even though V died from ulcer, not beating
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

R v Pagett

A

psychopath boyfriend held gun to girlfriend’s head - opened fire

  • police shot back in retaliation but hit girl by accident
  • both caused V’s death, but police protected by self defence
  • can have two causes of the same death
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

R v Kennedy

A

V’s act is a novus actus only if V made a free and informed decision

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

R v D

A

Suicide is not a novus actus

  • D still caused death
  • novus actus needs to be free, and V was not free
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Chief Constable of Avon v Shimmon

A

all risks taken must have a good reason for them

- even small risks make you reckless

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

R v Cunningham

A

To be reckless D must have foresaw the risk himself

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

Booth v CPS

A

Technicalities don’t matter

  • didn’t foresee himself damaging the car but did foresee the car hitting him
  • still reckless
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Jones v First Tier & Criminal Injuries

A

Suicidal person is not reckless

  • just focusing on his own suicide
  • not considering other risks
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

R v Parker

A

If you are voluntarily overcome by anger and cut off thinking process, you are still reckless

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

R v Harris

A

Involuntarily cutting out thinking process = not reckless

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

Nicklinson

A

Best Interest Doctrine

  • can you stop a suicide and be protected by best interest doctrine?
  • Hale said yes, you can assume they are not in a stable mind set
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

A v UK (1999)

A

parental chastisement is bad and state should deter acquitting bad actions by private citizens that breach ECHR

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

DPP v K

A

If causal link satisfied then it is fine

battery made acid made contact, even though he didn’t actually physically throw the acid

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

Fagon v Metropolitan Police

A

Battery is a continuing act

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

R v Martin

A

Causing someone to collide with another object is still battery because there is no novus actus

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

Faulkner v Talbot

A

Novus actus when he decided to go ahead with fucking her

  • free and informed decision
  • not battery
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

DPP v Santana Bermudez

A

Not novus actus because not free and informed

  • no duty to say anything but she asked
  • he deliberately lied creating a dangerous situation
  • omissions can create criminal liability if D is under a duty to act
  • these duties arise out of: contract, relationship, assumption of care, or creation of a dangerous situation
23
Q

Colins v Wilcock

A

ordinary contact is not battery unless V strongly objects

24
Q

H v CPS

A

mental home worker got hit by patient

- mere knowledge is not consent

25
Q

Haystead v Chieft Constable of Derbyshire

A

Causal link means mens rea can transfer and multiply

  • hit wife who dropped baby
  • D is guilty for battery of baby (transfer malice)
26
Q

R v Spratt

A

Playing with a BB gun, aimed pellets at a rubbish tip

  • hit an 8 year old
  • not reckless
  • recklessness is subjective
  • D must himself foresee the risk
  • he didn’t foresee there would be a kid there
  • because if not subjective, no mens rea!
27
Q

Gilick v West Norfolk

A

children can consent

28
Q

R v Richardson

A

dodgy dentist case

  • prosecution focused the consent on the ACT which was wrong
  • focus on consenting to the PERSON would be better
  • deception can negate consent
  • but they consented to act and they got the act
29
Q

R v Allen

A

Majewski applies even in social drinking

30
Q

R v Majewski

A

cannot use the defence of voluntary intoxication for basic intent offences

31
Q

R v Brady

A

EXCEPTION to Majewski

- if D would’t have known if he was sober either

32
Q

R v Bailey

A

If D doesn’t know substance is dangerous, Majewski does not apply
(jury weren’t convinced so he was convicted)

  • hit the man his wife was cheating on him with with a metal pole, claimed he overdosed insulin
33
Q

R v Hardie

A

Took his partner’s valium, not knowing side effects

  • jury allowed
34
Q

R v Lamb

A

no assault because neither anticipated

35
Q

R v Ireland

A

assault can be over the phone

36
Q

R v Savage

A

for ABH, you only need mens rea for original assault

37
Q

R v Burstow

A

to inflict GBH, no need for original assault/battery, just need to cause it

38
Q

R v Bollom

A

GBH is victim dependant

39
Q

R v Golding

A

GBH - no need for permanent or dangerous harm

  • assessment of harm done is by jury
40
Q

R v Dica

A

Inflicting means ‘caused’, no need for an assault or a battery

41
Q

R v Cunningham

A

D must have foresaw SOME HARM to have mens rea for GBH

42
Q

DPP v Parameter

A

GBH mens rea - you need to see SOME HARM, no need for full extent of harm

  • Father shook young baby (he was mentally disadvantaged)
  • father claimed he didn’t know any harm would come
  • prosecution couldn’t show he did understand any harm
  • conviction was quashed
43
Q

A-G Ref (no.6 of 1980)

A

Can consent to mere assault/battery but not if it is intended to cause ABH or does cause ABH

44
Q

R v Brown

A

HL confirmed that you cannot consent to ABH/GBH unless there is a good reason and sadomasochistic desires are not a good reason

45
Q

R v Jones

A

V can consent if D did not foresee any harm (consent defence, also because D didn’t have mens rea)
- opposite of birthday bumps - throwing the kid in the air, he ended up suffering a serious back injury

46
Q

R v Slingsby

A

neither foresaw any harm

  • can rely on consent
  • not done to risk harm
47
Q

R v Emmett

A

Brown confirmed on a heterosexual basis

48
Q

R v wilson

A

Branding (wife wanted husband’s initials)

  • not done for the pain
  • so consent can be used
49
Q

R v Marcus

A

noxious substance is anything that is ‘unwholesome’

50
Q

R v Cato

A

Bad authority but said you cannot consent to poisoning because “it is illegal”(??? wtf)

51
Q

Re F

A

HL - best interest doctrine is only possible where V cannot have consented
- mentally ill patient being sterilised

52
Q

Re Y

A

Best interests doctrine stretched to its limits

  • Bone marrow for sis
  • said if she didn’t do it, less visits from mum
  • visits from mum benefited her illness
53
Q

St. George’s Healthcare NHS v S (1998)

A

If patient is able to make decision, you have to listen, even if it is an unwise decision

  • mother didn’t want c section
  • doctor did it anyway
  • if V made a decision (even if it is bad) it must be respected
  • s.1(4) MCA
54
Q

Rabone v Pennine Trust (2012)

A

Duty to prevent suicide if you’re in a position of care

- if you know they do not have the mental capacity to do so

Criminal Law (6 decks)

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