Seen question Flashcards
R v Latimer 1886
Belt ricocheted off intended victim and hit woman also
Mens rea: Transferred the malice onto her aswell
Woollin
D can be liable using oblique intent if the consequences are virtually certain
Matthews and Alleyne 2003
Foresight of virtual certainty is evidence of oblique intent and proof of recklessness - for the jury to decide
White 1910
But for - factual causation
Withstanding D’s actions would the result have occured
Smith 1959
Legal causation
-substantial and operating
significant and contributory
Dear 1996
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
Blaue 1975
Thin skull rule
- Must take the victim as you find them
‘take the whole person, not just the physical person’
Roberts 1972
Created the daftness test
- was the victims action to escape reasonably foreseeable or so daft as to break the chain of causation
Hennigan 1971
D’s acts do not need to be the sole or even the main cause of the victims death
Pagget 1983
A third party act will only break the chain of causation if it is voluntary ie ‘free, deliberate and informed’
R v Wallace (Mark Von Dongen)
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
Lidar 2000
The recklessness of manslaughter requires that the defendant realise there is a significant risk of death or GBH
R v G 2003
Subjective recklessness (not for manslaughter) Realises there is a risk of some harm, takes that risk unecessarily
Haystead 2000
The mum acted as a medium to the battery of the baby - it is not necessary that the victim be hit directly
Church 1966
Unlawful act manslaughter
Dangerous act
- all sober and reasonable people would realise the risk of some harm
Cheshire 1991
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
Gibbins v Proctor 1918
Omission - duty of care - special relationship - parent
R v Lowe 1973
Negligent omissions were not enough to convict of involuntary manslaughter
Adamako 1994
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
R (on the application of Rowley) 2003
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
Donoghue v Stevenson 1932
Duty of care (for use in gross negligence) is that a reasonable person would have foreseen the risk
