Seen question

Question 1

R v Latimer 1886

Answer 1

Belt ricocheted off intended victim and hit woman also

Mens rea: Transferred the malice onto her aswell

Question 2

Woollin

Answer 2

D can be liable using oblique intent if the consequences are virtually certain

Question 3

Matthews and Alleyne 2003

Answer 3

Foresight of virtual certainty is evidence of oblique intent and proof of recklessness - for the jury to decide

Question 4

White 1910

Answer 4

But for - factual causation

Withstanding D’s actions would the result have occured

Question 5

Smith 1959

Answer 5

Legal causation
-substantial and operating
significant and contributory

Question 6

Dear 1996

Answer 6

Case avoided setting precedent for whether suicide breaks the chain but suggested you could use the other general rules of causation e.g. thin skull rule, reasonable attempt to escape

Question 7

Blaue 1975

Answer 7

Thin skull rule
- Must take the victim as you find them
‘take the whole person, not just the physical person’

Question 8

Roberts 1972

Answer 8

Created the daftness test

- was the victims action to escape reasonably foreseeable or so daft as to break the chain of causation

Question 9

Hennigan 1971

Answer 9

D’s acts do not need to be the sole or even the main cause of the victims death

Question 10

Pagget 1983

Answer 10

A third party act will only break the chain of causation if it is voluntary ie ‘free, deliberate and informed’

Question 11

R v Wallace (Mark Von Dongen)

Answer 11

Recent case where Ms Wallace threw acid at her ex/boyfriend and he became paralysed, lost a leg, an eye and an ear - decided he didn’t want to live like this so he went to belgium to be euthanised

Question 12

Lidar 2000

Answer 12

The recklessness of manslaughter requires that the defendant realise there is a significant risk of death or GBH

Question 13

R v G 2003

Answer 13

Subjective recklessness (not for manslaughter)
Realises there is a risk of some harm, takes that risk unecessarily

Question 14

Haystead 2000

Answer 14

The mum acted as a medium to the battery of the baby - it is not necessary that the victim be hit directly

Question 15

Church 1966

Answer 15

Unlawful act manslaughter
Dangerous act
- all sober and reasonable people would realise the risk of some harm

Question 16

Cheshire 1991

Answer 16

A novus actus interveniens of a third party would need to be so potent as to render the defendants original act as insignificant - also third party being negligent doesn’t mean both can’t be liable

Question 17

Gibbins v Proctor 1918

Answer 17

Omission - duty of care - special relationship - parent

Question 18

R v Lowe 1973

Answer 18

Negligent omissions were not enough to convict of involuntary manslaughter

Question 19

Adamako 1994

Answer 19

Elements of gross negligence

• There is a duty of care
• D breached that duty
• The breach caused the death
• The breach was so gross as to amount to a crime

Question 20

R (on the application of Rowley) 2003

Answer 20

It is not necessary for the defendant to be aware of the risk for liability of gross negligence, but being aware of the risk is evidence of grossness

Question 21

Donoghue v Stevenson 1932

Answer 21

Duty of care (for use in gross negligence) is that a reasonable person would have foreseen the risk