Term 1 Flashcards
Factual causation is determined using a “but for” test
R v White
The son tried to poison his mother but she died of a heart attack before the poison worked, she would have died “but for” the poisoning
The actus reus is refusing to move the car off of the policeman’s foot
Fagan v Metropolitan Police
There is legal causation when the defendant “contributed significantly to the result”
R v Pagett
The defendant used his pregnant girlfriend while shooting at the police, the police shot her dead
Stabbing was not the actual cause of death so not murder
R v Jordan
The victim had an allergic reaction to an injection administered by the hospital
The negligence of the hospital caused the death but the defendant remained guilty
R v Cheshire
The hospital failed to administer a tracheotomy, but it was the initial wound that killed him
The thin skull rule
R v Blaue
The victim refused a blood transfusion due to religious beliefs
A defendant can be liable for an omission when they have a contractual duty to act
R v Pitwood
Assuming a duty of care can make you guilty of an omission
R v Stone and Dobinson
The defendants allowed Stone’s sister to die after they said they would look after her
Parents have a duty of care to act
R v Gibbons and Procter
The normal meaning of intention should be used (all acts beside homicide)
R v Mohan
“A decision to bring about… The commission of an offence, no matter whether the defendant desired the consequences or not”
There must be a virtual certainty of death or serious bodily harm that the defendant foresaw for a charge of murder
R v Woolin
The defendant threw his baby into a wall
The mens rea is realising that there is a risk that they may cause the actus reus (all unlawful acts beside homicide)
R v Cunningham
Interpretation of the Criminal Damage Act 1971to define the mens rea of criminal damage
R v R and G
1) a circumstance where he is aware of a risk that exists or will exist
2) a result when he is aware of a risk that will occur
The same mens rea is transferable malice
R v Latimer
Different mens rea is not transferable malice
R v Pembilton
The defendant intended to hit a person with a stone but smashed a window
Lord Steyn suggests that the Woolin rule should be overruled to mean intention to kill or intention to commit GBH with awareness that it may kill
R v Powell
Loss of control:
The courts cannot expect an “old head on young shoulders”
R v Camplin
Loss of control must consider whether the degree of violence was reasonable
R v Dongen
It is unclear how battered women cases will be solved under the new law
R v Ahluwalia
A mere difference if mind is not sufficient for the defence of dismissed responsibility
R v Byrne
Lord Lewton found this decision unfair
R v Vinagre
D used the old defence of diminished responsibility claiming his “othello syndrome” made him unnaturally jealous so was justified in killing his cheating wife
This would be decided differently under the new law
The courts may decide what substantially means
R v R
Alcohol dependency must be judged on the characteristics of the case
R v Stewart
Must be an act not merely an omission for unlawful act manslaughter to apply
R v Lowe
