Unit 1 Section B Cases Flashcards
R v Litchfield
The ordinary principles of negligence apply here
R v Bateman
GNM is when “the negligence of the accused goes beyond mere compensation”
Adomoko
conduct of the defendant has to be “so bad in all of the circumstances in their judgement as to amount to a criminal act or omission.”
Misra and Srivastava
Only a risk of death will suffice for GNM
Edwards
An example of GNM in the eyes of the jury
Finlay
An example of GNM in the eyes of the jury
M’Naughten
Insanity is an “abnormality of mental functioning”
-Also is responsible for the 3 elements of insanity
R v Sullivan
Epilepsy counts as an “abnormality of mental functioning”
R v Burgess
Sleepwalking counts as an “abnormality of mental functioning.”
Andrews v DPP
Crimes of negligence won’t do for UAM
Lowe
Crimes of omission won’t do for UAM
Corion-Auguiste
For UAM, the unlawful act must cause the death of the V
DPP v Newbury and Jones
Criminal damage can be a “dangerous” act
R v Larkin
OAPA are always dangerous
Le brun
For UAM, the D must only have needed to have mens rea for the unlawful act, not necessarily serious injury.
R v Church
-Defines a dangerous act as
“something which sober and reasonable people would know subjects the other person to a risk of harm”
What do the cases of
-Dawson
and
-Watson illustrate?
It’s assumed that the D would only have the knowledge which D had, or should have had when the crime was committed.
Airedale NHS trust vs Bland
If someone is in a vegetative state, they can be medically offed as they’re already dead.
Malcherek
If someone is in a vegetative state, they can be medically offed as they’re already dead.
Homicide can be done if the defendant has a duty to act
R v Pitwood
R v Woollin and R v Vickers are both
cases for implied malice
R v White
“But for” test
R v Pagett
legal causation test
R v Cheshire
Medical intervention generally isn’t an intervening act and therefore doesn’t break the chain of causation
R v Jordan
If medical intervention contributes more to the death of the C than D did, then it breaks the chain of causation
R v Ibrams and Gregory
If the D acts out of revenge, they cannot use the defence of loss of control
Camplin ILLUSTRATES
Where the defendants age and sex, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of defendant, might have reacted in the same or similar way and is therefore acquitted
R v Byrne
- Sexual perversion can cause diminished responsibility
- The jury decided whether impairment was substantial
R v Smith
Hint: Diminished responsibility
PMS can be an “abnormality of mental functioning”
R v Tandy
Alcohol dependency syndrome may count for diminished responsibility
R v Stewart
presents juries with a 3 stage test for ADS
R v Dawson and James
“force would be given its ordinary meaning.”
For robbery
Watmore v Jenkins
D’s loss of control must be total to qualify for automatism
