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;
36 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
if D’s conduct/omission cant be proved beyond reasonable doubt can they be convicted |
no |
|
|
what does factual causation ask |
whether D’s conduct/omission in fact caused the resultwhat does |
|
|
what does legal causation ask |
was D’s conduct a substantial, blameworthy and operating cause |
|
|
which causation do you need for a conviction |
both |
|
|
which kind of causation is the ‘But for’ test used for |
factual causation |
|
|
is causation a factor under AR or MR |
AR |
|
|
which case for the but for test said D was still guilty because V died sooner because of D’s intervention |
R v Dyson |
|
|
which case for the but for test shows that if more than 1 person caused the death then they can both be liable |
R v Benge |
|
|
which case is an example of D having the MR of committing the offence but D’s actions were unrelated to the death of V |
R v White |
|
|
For legal causation what are the 3 components |
Substantial, Blameworthy & Operating |
|
|
what does it mean to be a substantial cause |
D’s role has to be more than ‘de minimis’ (slight, negligible, insubstantial) |
|
|
which case shows blameworthy conduct not being the legal cause of death |
R v Dalloway |
|
|
what happened in R v Dalloway |
man drives cart holding reigns loosely. Child jumps infront and man cant stop quick enough is it his fault = no, not blameworthy legal cause |
|
|
what does it mean to be an operative cause |
the chain of causation mustnt be broken |
|
|
which case showed a break in the chain of causation |
R v Empress Cars |
|
|
what are the 4 ways a chain of causation can be broken |
1 subsequent actions of D 2. natural events 3. actions of V 4. actions/omissions of a 3rd party |
|
|
what does the intervening act need to be like for break in the chain of causation + case |
free, voluntary, informed & must supersede D’s actions Paggett |
|
|
what case is used to show the blurry lines of voluntariness |
Wise v Dunning |
|
|
what happened in Wise v Dunning |
religious preacher gives an anti-Catholic speach to a Catholic audience who retaliated violently, court held their actions were not voluntary |
|
|
what case shows if someone is acting in order to assist lw enforcement that this wont break the chain of causation |
Pagett |
|
|
which case is an example of natural events breaking chain of causation |
R v Gowans (infecting coma patient) |
|
|
what is the victims intervention to break the chain of causation 2 requirements |
that it be forseeable and vulntariness |
|
|
which case shows voluntariness of V breaking the chain of causation |
R v Kennedy (injecting heroin which was supplied by D) |
|
|
which case shows V breaking the chain of causation herself despite it being forseeable |
Roberts |
|
|
what is the eggshell skull rule |
you have to take D as you find them |
|
|
which case best shows the eggshell skull rule |
Hayward |
|
|
which case shows that V’s vulnerability wont break the chain of causation even if its unknown to D |
R v Blaue |
|
|
in which case did D chase his wife to which she collapses and dies from a heart problem bc of her fear |
Dhaliwal |
|
|
what happened in Roberts |
girl jumps out of a car when man makes sexual advances on her |
|
|
what happened in Blaue |
D stabs V she would survive if she accepted a blood transfusion which she did not so she died D still substantial blameworthy cause |
|
|
what is the intervention of a third prty breaking the chain of causation dependent on |
forseeabiliy voluntariness status of x |
|
|
are the acts of doctors likely to break the chain of causation |
nope |
|
|
what happened in r v jordan |
v is almost healed and x prescribes the wrong medication |
|
|
what happens in R v Smith |
x drops Y and provided bad treatment but D’s actions were still a significant and operating cause of death |
|
|
what are the two requirements for doctors to be liable |
1. X’s treatment had to be ‘palpably wrong’ 2. V’s injuries had to be largely healed |
|
|
what happened in Dear |
you must take V as you find them in the case where V makes the wounds worse. |
