Test Flashcards
Factual causation
- applies ‘but for test’
- but for Ds conduct, would consequence have occurred
- pagett: v would not have died but for D using her as a shield in shoot out
Legal causation
Ds conduct more than minimal cause of consequence
Others may contribute to consequence
Benge: d still a legal cause of deaths as his conduct more than a minimal cause
Medical negligence
Unlikely to break chain of causation unless it is so independent of Ds act and in itself so potent in causing death that Ds act is insignificant
Cheshire: medical complications were direct consequence of shooting + Ds act still a significant cause of Vs death
Vs own conduct
Unlikely to break chain of causation unless it is so daft that a reasonable person wouldn’t have foreseen v reacting in that way
Roberts: D held to be liable for Vs injuries as her reaction was reasonably foreseeable
Thin skull rule
If v has something unusual about them that makes them more vulnerable, COC won’t be broken
-eg religious beliefs
-d must take V as he finds him
-thin skull
BLAUE: had to take victim as he found her
Mens rea
- mental element of an offence: guilty mind
- each offence has its own mens rea
- prosecution must prove D had relevant mens rea for offence charged
Direct intent
D directly desires result that occurs and sets out to achieve it, result is his aim/purpose
Mohan: D deliberately punches V, directly intends to use unlawful force on V
Indirect intent
Result is not desired but was virtually certain to occur and D knows this
Woollin:
- trial judge misdirected jury on law
- HL held on appeal that D should be guilty of manslaughter
- trial judge should’ve made it clear that D must know undesired result virtually certain to occur- jury may find D indirectly intended death to occur
Recklessness
Where D knows there was a risk of result happening but takes that risk
Cunningham: d not liable, didn’t know there was a risk of gas escaping into Vs house- not intended to cause harm nor had he taken a risk he knew about
