Term 1

Question 0

Factual causation is determined using a “but for” test

Answer 0

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

Question 1

The actus reus is refusing to move the car off of the policeman’s foot

Answer 1

Fagan v Metropolitan Police

Question 2

There is legal causation when the defendant “contributed significantly to the result”

Answer 2

R v Pagett

The defendant used his pregnant girlfriend while shooting at the police, the police shot her dead

Question 3

Stabbing was not the actual cause of death so not murder

Answer 3

R v Jordan

The victim had an allergic reaction to an injection administered by the hospital

Question 4

The negligence of the hospital caused the death but the defendant remained guilty

Answer 4

R v Cheshire

The hospital failed to administer a tracheotomy, but it was the initial wound that killed him

Question 5

The thin skull rule

Answer 5

R v Blaue

The victim refused a blood transfusion due to religious beliefs

Question 6

A defendant can be liable for an omission when they have a contractual duty to act

Answer 6

R v Pitwood

Question 7

Assuming a duty of care can make you guilty of an omission

Answer 7

R v Stone and Dobinson

The defendants allowed Stone’s sister to die after they said they would look after her

Question 8

Parents have a duty of care to act

Answer 8

R v Gibbons and Procter

Question 9

The normal meaning of intention should be used (all acts beside homicide)

Answer 9

R v Mohan
“A decision to bring about… The commission of an offence, no matter whether the defendant desired the consequences or not”

Question 10

There must be a virtual certainty of death or serious bodily harm that the defendant foresaw for a charge of murder

Answer 10

R v Woolin

The defendant threw his baby into a wall

Question 11

The mens rea is realising that there is a risk that they may cause the actus reus (all unlawful acts beside homicide)

Answer 11

R v Cunningham

Question 12

Interpretation of the Criminal Damage Act 1971to define the mens rea of criminal damage

Answer 12

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

Question 13

The same mens rea is transferable malice

Answer 13

R v Latimer

Question 14

Different mens rea is not transferable malice

Answer 14

R v Pembilton

The defendant intended to hit a person with a stone but smashed a window

Question 15

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

Answer 15

R v Powell

Question 16

Loss of control:

The courts cannot expect an “old head on young shoulders”

Answer 16

R v Camplin

Question 17

Loss of control must consider whether the degree of violence was reasonable

Answer 17

R v Dongen

Question 18

It is unclear how battered women cases will be solved under the new law

Answer 18

R v Ahluwalia

Question 19

A mere difference if mind is not sufficient for the defence of dismissed responsibility

Answer 19

R v Byrne

Question 20

Lord Lewton found this decision unfair

Answer 20

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

Question 21

The courts may decide what substantially means

Answer 21

R v R

Question 22

Alcohol dependency must be judged on the characteristics of the case

Answer 22

R v Stewart

Question 23

Must be an act not merely an omission for unlawful act manslaughter to apply

Answer 23

R v Lowe

Question 24

Simple lack of care is not enough for a conviction of unlawful act manslaughter

Answer 24

Andrews v DPP

Killed a pedestrian while speeding and overtaking another car

Question 25

An unlawful act manslaughter must amount from a dangerous act

Answer 25

R v Church

Question 26

Foreseeing death is not necessary for constructive manslaughter

Answer 26

DPP v Newbury

Question 27

A reasonable person would not know the characteristics of the defendant

Answer 27

R v Dawson

Unlawful act manslaughter did not apply as they were not aware of the victim’s heart condition

Question 28

Judged by the sober and reasonable man

Answer 28

R v Ball

Question 29

Unlawful act manslaughter is analysed purely on causation

Answer 29

AG Ref No. 3 of 1994

This overruled Dalby where the act had to happen directly to the victim

Question 30

For gross negligence manslaughter to apply death must have been foreseen by the reasonable man

Answer 30

R v Singh (Gurpal)

Question 31

Consent cannot be a defence to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861

Answer 31

R v Brown