WordPress.com



146056985R v Smith (1961)(legal causation)00R v Smith (1961)(legal causation)29178256985Two soldiers had a fight => on is stabbed V was carried to hospital; medical staff gave him artificial respiration by pressing his chest => injury worsenedSmith was guilty because the wound on V’s lung was still ‘operating’ (not healed up) and it was the substantial cause of V’s death00Two soldiers had a fight => on is stabbed V was carried to hospital; medical staff gave him artificial respiration by pressing his chest => injury worsenedSmith was guilty because the wound on V’s lung was still ‘operating’ (not healed up) and it was the substantial cause of V’s death29178251683385V was stabbed in stomach, hospital treatment => wound’s healing wellSuffered an allergic reaction due to being given an antibiotic; next day another doctor gave a large dose of the antibioticV died due to an allergic reaction => doctor’s actions are the intervening act => D was not guilty of murder 00V was stabbed in stomach, hospital treatment => wound’s healing wellSuffered an allergic reaction due to being given an antibiotic; next day another doctor gave a large dose of the antibioticV died due to an allergic reaction => doctor’s actions are the intervening act => D was not guilty of murder 146051683385R v Jordan (1956)(legal causation)00R v Jordan (1956)(legal causation)146053367405R v Blaue (1975)(thin skull rule)00R v Blaue (1975)(thin skull rule)29178253367405D stabs a young woman, who is a Jehovah Witness => she needs blood transfusionReligion prohibits her blood transfusion => she dies (being a Jehovah Witness made it more fatal)D’s guilty because he has to take V as he found her (had to respect religion)00D stabs a young woman, who is a Jehovah Witness => she needs blood transfusionReligion prohibits her blood transfusion => she dies (being a Jehovah Witness made it more fatal)D’s guilty because he has to take V as he found her (had to respect religion)146055051425R v Cato (1976)(causation - murder)00R v Cato (1976)(causation - murder)29178256735445A hitch-hiker jumped from D’s car and died from head injuries caused by his head hitting the groundD attempted to rob V (steal his wallet)Car was travelling at 30 mphV’s act had to be reasonably foreseeable and had to be proportionate to the threatV’s actions broke the chain of events00A hitch-hiker jumped from D’s car and died from head injuries caused by his head hitting the groundD attempted to rob V (steal his wallet)Car was travelling at 30 mphV’s act had to be reasonably foreseeable and had to be proportionate to the threatV’s actions broke the chain of events146056735445R v Williams (1992)(V’s own actions)00R v Williams (1992)(V’s own actions)29178255051425The appellant purchased some herointook it to his home which he shared with Anthony Farmer and two othersThey each prepared their own solution and then paired off to inject each otherFarmer prepared his own solution and the appellant injected himThis was repeated during the nightFarmer was found deadManslaughter and administering a noxious thing under s.23 OAPA 1861 00The appellant purchased some herointook it to his home which he shared with Anthony Farmer and two othersThey each prepared their own solution and then paired off to inject each otherFarmer prepared his own solution and the appellant injected himThis was repeated during the nightFarmer was found deadManslaughter and administering a noxious thing under s.23 OAPA 1861 146056985R v Roberts (1972) (V’s own actions)00R v Roberts (1972) (V’s own actions)29178256985Girl jumped from a car (driving between 20-40 mph) in order to escape from D’s sexual advancementsD was held liable for her injuries ABH under s47 of Offences Against the Person Act 1861V’s actions were reasonable + foreseeable 00Girl jumped from a car (driving between 20-40 mph) in order to escape from D’s sexual advancementsD was held liable for her injuries ABH under s47 of Offences Against the Person Act 1861V’s actions were reasonable + foreseeable 29178251683385D was interested in underage girlsD murdered (possibly asphyxiation) two 10-year old girls before disposing of their bodies in an irrigation ditch close to HYPERLINK "" \o "RAF Lakenheath" RAF Lakenheath, SuffolkD’s girlfriend was sentenced to 3 ? years for providing him with a fake alibiD was sentenced to at least 40 years in prison00D was interested in underage girlsD murdered (possibly asphyxiation) two 10-year old girls before disposing of their bodies in an irrigation ditch close to HYPERLINK "" \o "RAF Lakenheath" RAF Lakenheath, SuffolkD’s girlfriend was sentenced to 3 ? years for providing him with a fake alibiD was sentenced to at least 40 years in prison146051683385R v Huntley (2001) (Express malice)(known also as the Soham murders case)00R v Huntley (2001) (Express malice)(known also as the Soham murders case)146053367405R v Vickers (1957) (Implied malice)00R v Vickers (1957) (Implied malice)29178253367405D broke into the cellar of a local sweet shopD was aware that the old lady who ran the shop was deaf; old lady came in the cellar + saw DD hit her several times with his fists and kicked her once in the head => V died Court of Appeal upheld D’s conviction for murderCA pointed out that where D intends to inflict grievous bodily harm and V dies => always sufficient in English law to imply malice aforethought 00D broke into the cellar of a local sweet shopD was aware that the old lady who ran the shop was deaf; old lady came in the cellar + saw DD hit her several times with his fists and kicked her once in the head => V died Court of Appeal upheld D’s conviction for murderCA pointed out that where D intends to inflict grievous bodily harm and V dies => always sufficient in English law to imply malice aforethought 146055051425DPP v Smith (1961) (Implied malice)00DPP v Smith (1961) (Implied malice)29178256735445A police officer ordered D to stop his carD pressed the accelerator D nearly hit the police officer (the police officer had to move away)D had the direct intention when putting his foot on the accelerator 00A police officer ordered D to stop his carD pressed the accelerator D nearly hit the police officer (the police officer had to move away)D had the direct intention when putting his foot on the accelerator 146056735445R v Mohan (1975) (Direct intention)00R v Mohan (1975) (Direct intention)29178255051425Smith was ordered by a police constable to stop his car which contained stolen goods; S accelerated insteadThe police constable jumped onto the car, but fell off and was killed by another oncoming car after S violently swerved the carSmith was convicted of murder and appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal00Smith was ordered by a police constable to stop his car which contained stolen goods; S accelerated insteadThe police constable jumped onto the car, but fell off and was killed by another oncoming car after S violently swerved the carSmith was convicted of murder and appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal146056985R v Woollin (1999) (Indirect intention)NB: this case can be found as Woollin (1998) and Woollin (2000)00R v Woollin (1999) (Indirect intention)NB: this case can be found as Woollin (1998) and Woollin (2000)29178256985Woollin threw his 3-month-old baby towards a pram, but the baby hit a wall and fractured its skull and diedWoollin must have foreseen the likelihood of his child hitting the wall, thus was held guilty00Woollin threw his 3-month-old baby towards a pram, but the baby hit a wall and fractured its skull and diedWoollin must have foreseen the likelihood of his child hitting the wall, thus was held guilty29178251683385Ds were striking miners, who were on protestThen went on a bridge and pushed a concrete block onto a taxi to prevent it from reaching the mineThe driver died00Ds were striking miners, who were on protestThen went on a bridge and pushed a concrete block onto a taxi to prevent it from reaching the mineThe driver died146051683385R v Hancock and Shankland (1985) (Indirect intention)00R v Hancock and Shankland (1985) (Indirect intention)146053367405R v Matthew and Alleyne (2003) (Indirect intention)00R v Matthew and Alleyne (2003) (Indirect intention)29178253367405Ds pushed V from a bridge over a river; V fell 25 feet into the river and drowned; Ds knew he could not swimTrial judge said that foreseeing virtual certainty of consequences was intentionCourt thought that if the jury was sure that the Ds had appreciated the virtual certainty of V’s death when they threw him into the river 00Ds pushed V from a bridge over a river; V fell 25 feet into the river and drowned; Ds knew he could not swimTrial judge said that foreseeing virtual certainty of consequences was intentionCourt thought that if the jury was sure that the Ds had appreciated the virtual certainty of V’s death when they threw him into the river 146055051425R v Nedrick (1986) (Indirect intention)00R v Nedrick (1986) (Indirect intention)29178256735445D wants to kill V = MRV was in the back of a van + D attacks him with a baseball batV is unconscious; D thinks he’s dead; still has MR; D throws V off a cliffV not dead but later dies of exposure to the elements (water, wind, sun) => act was formed00D wants to kill V = MRV was in the back of a van + D attacks him with a baseball batV is unconscious; D thinks he’s dead; still has MR; D throws V off a cliffV not dead but later dies of exposure to the elements (water, wind, sun) => act was formed146056735445R v Thabo Meli (1954)(Contemporaneous act)00R v Thabo Meli (1954)(Contemporaneous act)29178255051425D poured paraffin in a letter box and set it on fireD didn’t directly intend to kill anybody, but his actions were foreseeableDirect intent was to scare his female neighbour00D poured paraffin in a letter box and set it on fireD didn’t directly intend to kill anybody, but his actions were foreseeableDirect intent was to scare his female neighbour146056985R v Gnango (2011)(Indirect intention)00R v Gnango (2011)(Indirect intention)29178256985Two gang members were in a shootingOne of them shot at the otherA lady crossed the street and the bullet hit herD didn’t intend to kill her 00Two gang members were in a shootingOne of them shot at the otherA lady crossed the street and the bullet hit herD didn’t intend to kill her 29178251683385A British Army officer was in Belfast He shot a teenager with his last of the 4 bullets he had fired whilst the teenager had been driving a stolen car Court held that D had used force without a lawful purposeConviction was later overturned00A British Army officer was in Belfast He shot a teenager with his last of the 4 bullets he had fired whilst the teenager had been driving a stolen car Court held that D had used force without a lawful purposeConviction was later overturned146051683385R v Clegg (1995)(‘under the Queen’s peace’)00R v Clegg (1995)(‘under the Queen’s peace’)146053367405R v Malcherek (1995)(‘reasonable creature in being’)00R v Malcherek (1995)(‘reasonable creature in being’)29178253367405D had stabbed his wife; V was taken to hospital and placed on a life support machine; V was not showing any activity in their brain stem => doctors later switched off the life support machines D argued that that the doctors' actions constituted a novus actus interveniens which broke the chain of causationAt the time of switching off the machine, V was already dead => doctors weren’t the cause of death00D had stabbed his wife; V was taken to hospital and placed on a life support machine; V was not showing any activity in their brain stem => doctors later switched off the life support machines D argued that that the doctors' actions constituted a novus actus interveniens which broke the chain of causationAt the time of switching off the machine, V was already dead => doctors weren’t the cause of death146055051425Attorney General’s Reference No. 3 1997 (1994)(‘reasonable creature in being’)00Attorney General’s Reference No. 3 1997 (1994)(‘reasonable creature in being’)29178256735445Father had to look after his 7-year-old daughterLocked her in a basement, didn’t feed herGirl died => father had failed to carry out his duty of parenting => was liable for her death00Father had to look after his 7-year-old daughterLocked her in a basement, didn’t feed herGirl died => father had failed to carry out his duty of parenting => was liable for her death146056735445R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918)(killing through an omission)00R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918)(killing through an omission)29178255051425D stabbed his girlfriend, who was 24 weeks pregnant; fewer than 3 weeks’ later, the girlfriend gave birth severely prematurely due to the stabbingBaby died 121 days after its birthA child cannot be killed until it has lived outside of its mother00D stabbed his girlfriend, who was 24 weeks pregnant; fewer than 3 weeks’ later, the girlfriend gave birth severely prematurely due to the stabbingBaby died 121 days after its birthA child cannot be killed until it has lived outside of its mother ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download