Flashcards
AR and Causation
Cards in this deck (22)
- 1R v Le Bruncontinuing act causation (transaction principle) can apply even if the later acts were accidental and there was no premeditation
- 2R v SmithOperating and substantial cause of death test applied, even if another cause is also operating
- 3Empress Cars3rd party actions are not an intervening act if they are 'normal' but do break the chain of causation if they are 'abnormal or exceptional'
- 4R v LoweOmmissions may, but will not always, establish manslaughter
- 5R v HenniganConfirms the 'sunstantial cause' test
- 6R v JordanMedical negligence that is "palpably wrong" can be novus actus interveniens
- 7R v Malcherek and SteelDeath is brain stem death, so Drs do not commit an intervening act when the turn off life support
- 8R v Thabo MeliContinuing Act principle can be used to establish coincidence of AR and MR
- 9R v SimmondsMedical evidence can establish causal link
- 10Fagancontinuing act can establish AR and MR coincidence
- 11Rungzabe Khan and Tahir KhanAn ommission can only amount to manslaughter if there is a duty of care
- 12EvansA supplier of drugs can be guilty of gross negligence manslaughter if they "fail to counteract" the situation they created
- 13R v ChurchUnlawful act manslaughter requires a risk of danger.
Continuing acts can be the AR - 14R v PittwoodContractual duty can provide ommissions liability
- 15R v DownesNeglect (even if based on religious belief) may amount to gross negligence manslaughter
- 16DPP v Santana BermudezAn ommission which creates a dangerous situation can amount to assault
- 17R v DearBut for test applied. Even if a victim aggravates wounds that may not cause death, the chain is not broken
- 18R v MackieCausation is maintained when death results from fleeing out of a well-founded fear of unlawful act (injury)
- 19WhiteEstablished the 'but for' test of factual causation
- 20R v HaywardDeath caused by the fear of unlawful violence can be manslaughter
Think skull principle applied - 21R v RobertsThe actions of a victim are not novus actus interveniens if they could reasonably be foreseen as a consequence of D's actions. Not 'daft'
- 22R v GowansThe importance of the 'but for' and 'substantial and operating cause' tests in establishing causation upheld
Information
- Description
- Undergraduate Law (Criminal Law) Flashcards on AR and Causation, created by catriona.lilley on 30/04/2013.
- Created by
- catriona.lilley
- Views
- 152
- Tags
- Rating