OAPA - Main cases Flashcards
R v Mallot
- ‘one punch manslaughter’
- causation
- D’s act still causes death if there is no subsequent human intervention even if result is very unlikely
R v Cheshire
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)
R v Blaue
V refusing treatment does not render D’s act too remote (NOT A NOVUS ACTUS)
R v Roberts
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
R v Lewis
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
R v McNechie
- 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
R v Pagett
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
R v Kennedy
V’s act is a novus actus only if V made a free and informed decision
R v D
Suicide is not a novus actus
- D still caused death
- novus actus needs to be free, and V was not free
Chief Constable of Avon v Shimmon
all risks taken must have a good reason for them
- even small risks make you reckless
R v Cunningham
To be reckless D must have foresaw the risk himself
Booth v CPS
Technicalities don’t matter
- didn’t foresee himself damaging the car but did foresee the car hitting him
- still reckless
Jones v First Tier & Criminal Injuries
Suicidal person is not reckless
- just focusing on his own suicide
- not considering other risks
R v Parker
If you are voluntarily overcome by anger and cut off thinking process, you are still reckless
R v Harris
Involuntarily cutting out thinking process = not reckless
Nicklinson
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
A v UK (1999)
parental chastisement is bad and state should deter acquitting bad actions by private citizens that breach ECHR
DPP v K
If causal link satisfied then it is fine
battery made acid made contact, even though he didn’t actually physically throw the acid
Fagon v Metropolitan Police
Battery is a continuing act
R v Martin
Causing someone to collide with another object is still battery because there is no novus actus
Faulkner v Talbot
Novus actus when he decided to go ahead with fucking her
- free and informed decision
- not battery
DPP v Santana Bermudez
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
Colins v Wilcock
ordinary contact is not battery unless V strongly objects
H v CPS
mental home worker got hit by patient
- mere knowledge is not consent
Haystead v Chieft Constable of Derbyshire
Causal link means mens rea can transfer and multiply
- hit wife who dropped baby
- D is guilty for battery of baby (transfer malice)
R v Spratt
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!
Gilick v West Norfolk
children can consent
R v Richardson
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
R v Allen
Majewski applies even in social drinking
R v Majewski
cannot use the defence of voluntary intoxication for basic intent offences
R v Brady
EXCEPTION to Majewski
- if D would’t have known if he was sober either
R v Bailey
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
R v Hardie
Took his partner’s valium, not knowing side effects
- jury allowed
R v Lamb
no assault because neither anticipated
R v Ireland
assault can be over the phone
R v Savage
for ABH, you only need mens rea for original assault
R v Burstow
to inflict GBH, no need for original assault/battery, just need to cause it
R v Bollom
GBH is victim dependant
R v Golding
GBH - no need for permanent or dangerous harm
- assessment of harm done is by jury
R v Dica
Inflicting means ‘caused’, no need for an assault or a battery
R v Cunningham
D must have foresaw SOME HARM to have mens rea for GBH
DPP v Parameter
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
A-G Ref (no.6 of 1980)
Can consent to mere assault/battery but not if it is intended to cause ABH or does cause ABH
R v Brown
HL confirmed that you cannot consent to ABH/GBH unless there is a good reason and sadomasochistic desires are not a good reason
R v Jones
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
R v Slingsby
neither foresaw any harm
- can rely on consent
- not done to risk harm
R v Emmett
Brown confirmed on a heterosexual basis
R v wilson
Branding (wife wanted husband’s initials)
- not done for the pain
- so consent can be used
R v Marcus
noxious substance is anything that is ‘unwholesome’
R v Cato
Bad authority but said you cannot consent to poisoning because “it is illegal”(??? wtf)
Re F
HL - best interest doctrine is only possible where V cannot have consented
- mentally ill patient being sterilised
Re Y
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
St. George’s Healthcare NHS v S (1998)
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
Rabone v Pennine Trust (2012)
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
