Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
12 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
result crimes |
= the actus reus requires a result or consequence There is a two stage test |
|
|
Two stage test |
1) factual causation 2) legal causation both parts must be satisfied |
|
|
factual causation |
'but for' test But for the D's actions the result would not have occured White [1910] |
|
|
Legal causation |
whether the D should be liable by law requires; 1) an operating and substantial cause 2) no novus actus interviniens 3) thin skull rule |
|
|
Operating and substantial cause - Smith [1959] |
The D's actions need not be the sole cause, or the main cause, it is enough that his act contributed significantly to the result - R v Pagett [1983] must be 'more than slight and trifling' - Kimsey [1996] |
|
|
Novus actus interviniens |
= an intervening act/event - breaks the chain |
|
|
Novus actus interviniens includes |
1) the free, informed and deliberate intervention of a 3rd party 2) Negligent medical treatment 3) Actions or reactions of the victim 4) Neglect by the victim 5) an abnormal natural event at the time of or after the D's conduct |
|
|
Free, informed and deliberate intervention of a third party |
Pagett |
|
|
Negligent medical treatment |
Malcherek v Steel [1981] Smith [1959] Jordan [1956] NOTE = exception! Must be viewed in light of Cheshire [1991] |
|
|
Actions or reactions of the victim |
Roberts [1971] Dear [1996] Holland [1841] |
|
|
Thin skull rule |
D must take his V as he finds him = applies to pre-existing physical or psychological defects Hayward [1908] Blaue [1975] |
|
|
Abnormal natural even coinciding with or supervening after D's conduct |
The event must be unforeseeable or extraordinary to apply. |
