AR and Causation

catriona.lilley
Flashcards by catriona.lilley, updated more than 1 year ago
catriona.lilley
Created by catriona.lilley over 7 years ago
104
1

Description

Undergraduate Law (Criminal Law) Flashcards on AR and Causation, created by catriona.lilley on 04/30/2013.
Tags

Resource summary

Question Answer
R v Le Brun continuing act causation (transaction principle) can apply even if the later acts were accidental and there was no premeditation
R v Smith Operating and substantial cause of death test applied, even if another cause is also operating
Empress Cars 3rd party actions are not an intervening act if they are 'normal' but do break the chain of causation if they are 'abnormal or exceptional'
R v Lowe Ommissions may, but will not always, establish manslaughter
R v Hennigan Confirms the 'sunstantial cause' test
R v Jordan Medical negligence that is "palpably wrong" can be novus actus interveniens
R v Malcherek and Steel Death is brain stem death, so Drs do not commit an intervening act when the turn off life support
R v Thabo Meli Continuing Act principle can be used to establish coincidence of AR and MR
R v Simmonds Medical evidence can establish causal link
Fagan continuing act can establish AR and MR coincidence
Rungzabe Khan and Tahir Khan An ommission can only amount to manslaughter if there is a duty of care
Evans A supplier of drugs can be guilty of gross negligence manslaughter if they "fail to counteract" the situation they created
R v Church Unlawful act manslaughter requires a risk of danger. Continuing acts can be the AR
R v Pittwood Contractual duty can provide ommissions liability
R v Downes Neglect (even if based on religious belief) may amount to gross negligence manslaughter
DPP v Santana Bermudez An ommission which creates a dangerous situation can amount to assault
R v Dear But for test applied. Even if a victim aggravates wounds that may not cause death, the chain is not broken
R v Mackie Causation is maintained when death results from fleeing out of a well-founded fear of unlawful act (injury)
White Established the 'but for' test of factual causation
R v Hayward Death caused by the fear of unlawful violence can be manslaughter Think skull principle applied
R v Roberts The actions of a victim are not novus actus interveniens if they could reasonably be foreseen as a consequence of D's actions. Not 'daft'
R v Gowans The importance of the 'but for' and 'substantial and operating cause' tests in establishing causation upheld
Show full summary Hide full summary

Similar

Criminal Law
jesusreyes88
A-Level Law: Theft
amyclare96
Criminal Law Lecture 1 Spring Term
Maryam Z
The Criminal Courts
thornamelia
How Parliament Makes Laws
harryloftus505
Contract Law
sherhui94
AQA AS LAW, Unit 1, Section A, Parliamentary Law Making 1/3
Nerdbot98
A2 Law: Cases - Defence of Insanity
Jessica 'JessieB
Law Commission 1965
ria rachel
A2 Law: Special Study - Robbery
Jessica 'JessieB
Omissions
ameliathorn0325