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;
13 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Intro |
D may be liable under Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 for unlawfully and maliciously wounding [OR unlawfully and maliciously CAUSING grievous bodily harm ] WITH INTENT to do some grievous bodily harm or to resist or prevent arrest. |
|
|
Actus Reus |
The ACTUS REUS is an act or omission causing a wound [OR GBH]. [If it's an omission say an omission is a failure to act where there is a duty to do so and refer to one of contractual/Pittwood, voluntary care/Stone and Dobinson, dangerous situation/Miller). |
|
|
V's injuries(wounding) |
Here V's injuries constitute a wound, defined in EISENHOWER as breaking both outer and inner layers of the skin as she suffered [eg. deep cuts, stab wounds, bleeding] |
|
|
V's injuries(GBH) |
OR constitute GBH, defined as really serious (SMITH) or serious harm(SAUNDERS) as she suffered [eg. broken limbs, broken jaw, fractured skull, permanent disability/loss of sense, serious infection - DICA, serious psychiatric harm-BURSTOW, IRELAND]. |
|
|
Causation |
Factual causation is satisfied as "but for" D [say what D did], the wound [or GBH] would not have occurred (PAGETT,WHITE) and legal causation is satisfied as D was the operating and substantial cause of the wound [or GBH] as it was a significant,more than minimal contribution (SMITH). |
|
|
Legal Causation:IR(Intervening act) |
Y [eg. falling over and sufferingcuts] is an intervening act (novus actus interveniens) but will not break the chain of causation as it was reasonably foreseeable (use PAGETT:"act of a thirdparty/contribution of others" or ROBERTS:"victim's own act") and legal causation issatisfied. |
|
|
Legal Causation:IR(Medical Negligence) |
Medical negligence as a novus actus interveniens/intervening act doesnot break the chain of causation (CHESHIRE) unless it is "palpably wrong" (JORDAN)Here.............. |
|
|
Legal Causation:IR(thin skull rule) |
The thin skull rule means to take your victim as you find them wherethe victim has a hidden weakness and so there will be legal causation (BLAUE).Here........ |
|
|
Mens Rea |
As set out in BELFON, the MENS REA is specific/direct intention ONLY as to causing grievous bodily harm or resisting or preventing arrest. |
|
|
Direct Intention |
D had specific/directintention as she decided to bring about the particular consequence (MOHAN) of really serious (SMITH) or serious harm (SAUNDERS) when [application] |
|
|
IR:intent to resist arrest |
If there is intention to resist/prevent arrest, D needs only to be subjectively reckless as to the harm. |
|
|
IR:Transferred malice |
"The transferred malice principle applies, where a crime intended for one person falls on another by accident as in Latimer, so D will still be liable as the mens rea istransferred from X to V." |
|
|
Conclusion |
TO CONCLUDE, D is likely to be liable as the AR and MR are present. |
