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
|
White (1910) Smith (1959) |
White 1910 Establishes but for test in factual causation (cyanide in mothers drink did not kill her as she died from heart failure before poisoning she would have died anyway) Smith 1959 demonstrates causation in law in that the d's actions were not the only cause but were substantial enough to be held liable for v's death. |
|
|
R v Blaue (1975) |
Thin skull rule - death occurring from v's own action does not break chain in causation (v was stabbed, refused blood transfusion based on religious beliefs and died) |
|
|
Cheshire (1991) |
Factual causation in a homicide Operating and substantial cause of death (D shot v, v died of breathing problems coz of a tracheotomy, although d's actions were not operating cause of death, it was a substantial cause of death) |
|
|
Nedrick (1986) / woollin (1998) |
Intention Indirect/oblique (hard to prove) - where the charge is murder and intent to kill or cause GBH is not enough, a jury should be directed they are not entitled to find the necessary intention unless they're sure that death or GBH was a virtual certainty as a result of d's actions and d was aware of this virtual certainty (Jury looks at this subjectively and considers all evidence) |
|
|
Diminished responsibility |
S2 homicide act 1957 - amended by s52 coroners and justice act 2009. Defendant must demonstrate: 1. Abnormality of mental functioning caused by a recognised medical condition 2. Which provides an explanation for the d's acts/omissions in being party to the killing 3. Which substantially impaired their ability to either A. Understand the nature of their conduct B. Form rational judgement C. Exercise self control |
|
|
Byrne (1960) |
Abnormal mental functioning (d suffered irresistible impulses he was unable to control when he murdered and mutilated the body of a young woman) |
|
|
Dowds (2012) / Dietschmann (2003) |
Acute voluntary intoxication alone is not enough to use defence of diminished responsibility as in Dowds (2012) but when there is an underlying medical condition such as in dietschmann (2003) it can be used if the medical condition is partly to blame for the killing |
|
|
Loss of control (partial defence) 2 qualifying triggers |
Ss.54 and 55 coroners and justice act 2009 2 qualifying triggers are: 1. Fear of violence from the deceased 2. Things said or done which constituted an extremely grave character and gave the d a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged |
|
|
DPP v Camplin (1978)/ attorney general of jersey v Holley (2006) |
Defence of Loss of control - defendants sex and age are relevant - would a person of same sex and age with a normal degree of tolerance have acted in the same/similar way? (Camplin 1978) No Other characteristics should be applied to the reasonable man (attorney general of jersey v Holley 2006) |
|
|
A Murder charge can be reduced to Voluntary Manslaughter when... |
Diminished responsibility plea is put in. (S.52 CorJA 2009) abnormality mental functioning, medical condition, substantially impaired ability to form rational judgement and exercise self control, provides explanation for killing - link between abnormal mental and killing
Loss of self control ss.54 and 55 CorJA 2009 2 qualifying triggers= 1. Fear of violence from deceased against the d or close person to the d Pearson 1992- (brother killed father coz of fear for younger brother) 2. things said or done amounting to circumstances of an extremely grave character which gave d the sense of being seriously wronged ***A person of the same Sex and age of d would have done the same Camplin 1978 Attorney General of jersey v Holley 2005 |
|
|
Involuntary Manslaughter or constructive Manslaughter Is when d has not got the mens rea for murder But is at fault for the killing |
1. Proof d killed in the course of committing an unlawful and dangerous act (unlawful act/constructive Manslaughter) Must be an unlawful act NOT LIKE Franklin 1883 Mens rea and actus Reus must be proved Lamb 1967 Must be an act not an omission Lowe 1973 Act must be dangerous as in Church 1965 2. Proof d killed in the course of any conduct with gross negligence (gross negligence Manslaughter) as in Adomako 1994 |
|
|
Involuntary Manslaughter Would the reasonable person have foreseen a risk of injury knowing what the d knew at the time of the offence? |
Dawson 1985 - couldn't have known v had a weak heart when committing burglary, appeared healthy Watson 1989- the reasonable person could have known as the v was frail and elderly |
