Week 3 - Actus Reus continued

Question 1

Which judgement is the key authority for endangerment (or creation of a dangerous situation)?

Answer 1

Miller [1983]: D drunk and fell asleep with lit cigarette in a house he was staying in. Woke and discovered the mattress on fire, moved into another room, did nothing to stop the fire. Charged with arson and convicted.

Question 2

What is the legal test for creation of a dangerous situation?

Answer 2

D has done something whereby he has (inadvertently) created a dangerous situation, and on becoming aware of that danger, he fails to take steps to avert it.

Question 3

What did Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] illustrate?

Answer 3

D committed a ‘continuing act’ - started with driving onto the foot and continued thereafter - once the MR occurred at some point during this continuing act, then D is liable.

Question 4

What are the facts of Evans (Gemma) [2009]?

Answer 4

D was V’s half-sister, supplied V with heroin which V self-injected, V became unwell and D was aware, D failed to summon medical attention, V died.

Question 5

Why was Evans (Gemma) [2009] not found liable for murder?

Answer 5

There was a break in the chain of causation, V self-injected.
Rather GNM, once duty arose and she failed to act, she could be liable for GNM, providing the other requirements for that offence had been met.

Question 6

What is the difference between Miller and Evans?

Answer 6

Miller - D had a duty to act having created a dangerous situation WHERE HE BECAME AWARE of the danger he created.
Evans - D has a duty to act having created a dangerous situation WHERE SHE BECAME AWARE OR OUGHT TO HAVE BECOME AWARE of the danger created.

Question 7

What must D do to have satisfied the duty to act?

Answer 7

D must do what is reasonable - a question of fact for the jury.

Question 8

What are the requirements for establishing liability for an omission?

Answer 8

1. That D had a duty to act.
2. That D breached that duty.
3. That breach was unreasonable.

Question 9

What is the legal test or ratio of White [1910]?

Answer 9

‘But for D’s conduct the result would not have come about?’

Question 10

What principle did Benge (1846) establish?

Answer 10

More than one person may be liable for the result and may be guilty of an offence.

Question 11

Do both factual and legal causation need to be found in order for D to be liable?

Answer 11

Yes.

Question 12

D’s actions must be substantial, blameworthy and operative. Define substantial.

Answer 12

Pagett [1983] D’s conduct does not have to be the sole or even the main cause of the result.
Kimsey [1996] D’s conduct must be more than ‘slight of trifling’.
L [2010] D’s conduct must be more than ‘negligible’.
Cato [1976] D’s conduct must be more than ‘insubstantial or insignificant’.

Question 13

D’s actions must be substantial, blameworthy and operative. Define blameworthy.

Answer 13

Dalloway (1847)
Hughes [2013]
Taylor [2016]

Question 14

D’s actions must be substantial, blameworthy and operative. Define operative.

Answer 14

The chain of causation between D’s substantial and blameworthy conduct and the prohibited result must not be broken. There must be no novus actus interveniens.

Question 15

What acts/events will constitute novus actus interveniens?

Answer 15

Natural events; acts of the victim; acts of third party.

Question 16

D stabs V and leaves V lying on a beach unconscious at low tide. The tide comes in and V drowns. Why should D be liable for V’s death?

Answer 16

1. Conduct - stabs.
2. Result - death.
3. Factual causation - ‘But for’ causation is fulfilled.
4. Legal causation 1 - D’s acts in stabbing and leaving V unconscious are a substantial contribution to death.
5. Legal causation 2 - D’s acts are blameworthy.
6. Legal causation 3 - the tide did not break the chain of causation as it was foreseeable.

Question 17

When will a natural event break the chain of causation?

Answer 17

When it is unforeseeable.

Eg. D stabs V and leaves her on the pavement, a bolt of lightening hits V and kills her.

Question 18

What does Roberts (1971) demonstrate?

Answer 18

D driving V home, made unwanted sexual advances to her, V jumped out of car and suffered ABH. A’s act was foreseeable and thus did not break the chain of causation.

Question 19

What did Williams and Davis [1992] assert?

Answer 19

An objective test.
Was it reasonably foreseeable that some harm was likely to result from the threat?
Was V’s reaction within the range of responses that might be expected from a V placed in such a position?

Question 20

What is the general rule for a break in the chain of causation due to an act of the victim? What an a legal authority for this rule?

Answer 20

A free, deliberate and informed act by V will break the chain of causation.
Kennedy (No2) [2007] - V’s act of self-injection was a free, deliberate and informed act and thus broke the chain.

Question 21

What does the “egg-shell skull” rule state?

Answer 21

D must take V as s/he is found. D will have caused the result even if they did not now about this vulnerability and even if it was not reasonably foreseeable.

Question 22

What are some examples of the “egg-shell skull” rule?

Answer 22

Blaue [1975] - V refused treatment due to religious beliefs and died, did not break the chain.
Dhaliwal [2006] - left open possibility that a suicide following physical violence upon a fragile personality would not break chain.
Wallace [2018] - Acid attack on V, V went to Belgium to end their life, possible?

Question 23

What is the rule concerning third party intervention and the chain of causation?

Answer 23

A free, deliberate and informed act by a third party (who is not acting in concert with D) will break the chain of causation.
NOTE: different rules apply in cases involving medical negligence.

Question 24

There are no clear-cut rules in medical negligence cases. What are some examples?

Answer 24

Jordan [1956] - the treatment was ‘palpably wrong’ and was ‘the direct and immediate cause of death.’
Smith [1959] - the original wound had not healed, the wound thus remains the significant and operative cause of death.
Cheshire [1991] - treatment which falls below that standard of care and skill, remains the operative cause.

Question 25

Why are courts extremely reluctant to allow medical negligence to break the chain?

Answer 25

They are guided by policy: V would not have required medical treatment had D not put them in the position.