¡GoConqr estrena diseño! Cuéntanos qué te parece.

Mapa mental

Causation

Catherine Fairweather Inglés

Mind map about causation in criminal law: actus reus, mens rea, factual and legal causation and transferred malice

Mind map: Causation in criminal law

Contenido del mapa

Causation

  1. Actus Reus

    • Guilty Act
      • Mens Rea and Actus Reus must coincide
        • Fagan 1968 - continuing act
        • Thabo Meli 1954 - transaction theory
    • 4 categories of actus mens
      • Result Crimes (there must be a result)
      • Conduct Crimes (does not need to be a result)
      • State of affairs (state of being)
      • Omission (failure to do a duty)
    • Must be voluntary (Bratty 1963)
  2. Mens Rea

    • Guilty Mind
    • Intention
    • Negligence
    • Reckless
  3. Transferred Malice

    • Ability to transfer malice from one individual to another individual
      • Malice must be the same offence
        • Latimer 1886 - D aimed belt blow at a man because he attacked D. Blow actually struck a woman across the face
      • Malice is non-transferrable in a different offence to which was intended
        • Pembliton 1876 - D threw a stone, intending to hit people, but stone broke a window
  4. Factual Causation

    • "But for" test
      • White !910
      • But for the actions of D, would V have died or suffered the result?
  5. Legal Causation

    • This is a question for the Jury
    • "De Minimus" rule
      • Kimsey 1996
      • Was D's contribution more than minimal?
  6. Novius Actus Intervenienes

    • Must be unforeseeable and the overwhelming cause of result
    • 3.. Naturally Occuring Events
    • 1. Third Party
      • Smith 1959 - ruling - "Chain of causation will not be broken whilst original injury is still in operation"
      • Cheshire 1991 - ruling - "Intervening medical treatment must be so independent and so potential in causing result to exclude D's responsiblity for the act"
    • 2. Victim's Own Actions
      • Roberts 1971 - "Daftness Test" - Was the actions of V so daft that no reasonable man could be expected to foresee it?
      • Williams 1992 - ruling - "to make D guilty, V's actions had to be foreseeable and in proportion to the act"
  7. Thin Skull Rule

    • D must take V as he finds him. it means that if V has something such as a physical or mental illness or particular belief which makes the injury worse, D will be liable for more serious injury
      • Blaue 1975 - V was stabbed by D and needed a blood transfusion. But refused as was a Jehavoh's Witness. She later died and D was charged with murder

Información

Descripción
Mapa Mental sobre Causation, creado por Catherine Fairweather el 15/12/2015.
Visitas
86
Valoración

Escríbenos

¿Sobre qué es tu mensaje?

¿Qué te parece el nuevo diseño?

¿Te gusta?