5699783
Description
Flashcards by Natalie Lofthouse, updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by Natalie Lofthouse
almost 8 years ago
|
|
| Question | Answer |
| White (1910) | Facts: Poison in mother's drink. Principle: Applied the 'but for' test and found the defendant not guilty of murder. 'But for' his actions she would have died anyway. He was convicted of attempted murder. |
| Pagett (1983) | Facts: Held his girlfriend as a human shield whilst shooting at police. Police shot her. Principle: Applied the 'but for' test. 'But for' the defendant's actions the girl would not have been killed. He was guilty of manslaughter. |
| Legal Cause | The defendant must be more than the minimal cause of the outcome. They do not have to be the substantial cause. |
| Factual Cause | 'But for' the defendant's actions the consequence would not have occurred. |
| De minimis | Defendant's conduct must be more than the minimal cause. |
| Kimsey (1996) | Facts: D and victim were in a high speed car race. V was killed. Principle: Legal cause - The defendant is guilty as long as they were more than a 'slight or trifling link'. Court of Appeal upheld the conviction for death by dangerous driving. |
| 'Thin-skull' rule | The defendant must take the victim as they find him. The defendant is responsible for any worse injuries caused as a result of any physical or mental illnesses and religious beliefs. |
| Blaue (1975) | Facts: Jehovah's witness refused a life saving blood transfusion. Principle: The defendant must take the victim as they find them - thin skull rule. Defendant was convicted of murder. |
| Hayward (1908) | Facts: Husband chased wife out of house, she died due to an unknown thyroid condition. Principle: 'Thin-skull' rule was applied and the defendant was convicted of manslaughter. |
| Dyson (1908) | Facts: Child with meningitis, the defendant through him and he died. Principle: The defendant was guilty of murder, it did not matter that he would have died at some point. 'But for' the defendant's actions the child would not have died at that time. |
| Smith (1959) | Facts: Soldier was stabbed. He was dropped by medical staff and injuries were worsened through artificial respiration. Principle: The defendant's stab wound to the lung was a 'substantial and operating cause of the victim's death. |
| Cheshire (1991) | Facts: Man was shot and died months later due to tracheotomy complications. Principle: Even though medical treatment was 'short of the standard expected', the defendant's acts contributed significantly to the victim's death. CoA upheld the defendant's conviction for murder. |
| Jordan (1956) | Facts: Defendant stabbed the victim, once he was close to recovery the doctor gave him the wrong antibiotics and the victim died. Principle: The defendant was liable for the victim's death and the doctor's actions were 'palpably wrong.' |
| Malcherek (1981) | Facts: Defendant stabbed his wife and she was put on a life-support machine. Principle: It would be 'bizarre' if turning off the life-support machine broke the chain of causation. The CoA upheld the defendant's conviction for murder. |
| Roberts (1972) | Facts: Defendant made sexual advances towards the victim and she jumped out of the car and was injured as a result. Principle: The victim's reaction was foreseeable, therefore, the defendant was liable for the injuries. |
| Dear (1996) | Facts: Victim did not get treatment for his injuries and made them worse. Principle: The defendant's acts were an operating and significant cause of the victim's death. The CoA upheld the defendant's conviction for murder. |
| Williams and Davis (1992) | Facts: Hitch-hiker jumped out of the car and died. Principle: The defendant's acts must be reasonable and foreseeable. CoA quashed the defendant's manslaughter conviction. |
| Marjoram (2000) | Facts: Victim jumped from a window as numerous people broke into his room. Principle: The victim's act was reasonably foreseeable. The CoA upheld the defendant's conviction of GBH. |
| Benge (1865) | Facts: The defendant misread the timetable. Other members did also not execute their duty sufficiently. Principle: The defendant was a material and substantial cause of the accident. Defendant was convicted of manslaughter. |
| Bristow, Dunn and Delay (2012) | Facts: Owner of a business tried to prevent a robbery and was ran over and killed. Principle: The victim's action was reasonable foreseeable. The defendant's were convicted of manslaughter. |
| Holland (1841) | Facts: The victim refused amputation of finger after the defendant cut him. He died of blood poisoning. Principle: The defendant's actions caused the victim's death. The defendant was convicted of murder. |
| Kennedy (2007) | Facts: Defendant supplied heroin and the victim self-injected. Principle: The defendant's acts did not cause the victim's death. Her action broke the chain of causation. |
| How may the chain of causation be broken? | 1. Act by the third party 2. Act by the victim 3. Natural and unpredictable event |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.