All the cases needed for all topics summarised excluding only attempts (i dont like attempts.) I done the exam today and dont need this anymore but for anyone who may need it next year here you are! good luck! 

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: belinda
  • Created on: 22-06-11 20:28

First 480 words of the document:

Actus reus
Statutory duty: from acts like children and young persons act 1933-parent required to
provide food clothing lodging ect to children.
Pitwood (1902)- contractual duty- railway crossing left unattended and someone died
.. gatekeeper held responsible as went for lunch.
Dytham (1979)-duty through official position- police officer saw man being thrown out
of club and assaulted by security, went `off duty' ­ was guilty of misconduct in public
office as had as neglected to perform his duty
Gibbins and proctor (1918)-duty through relationship- little girl starved by dad and
stepmum died- parent had duty to feed her- charged with murder.
Stone and Dobinson (1977)- voluntarily undertaken duty- ill old aunt/aunt in law lived
with D's ­ was helped by D on one occasion so duty to care was established, D's found
guilty of manslaughter from her death of malnutrition.
Miller (1983)- duty from chain of events set- fell asleep with cigarette woke up with
mattress on fire moved on + failed to try to stop it- convicted of arson.
Dpp V Santana Bermudez (2003) ­battery can be from omission- when asked didn't
warn officer of sharp objects in pockets and she was injured with needle- convicted of
assault under s47 oapa.
Lowe (1973)- omission doesn't cover unlawful act manslaughter- D's baby was ill and
died only said should be taken to doctor but no further steps taken, was convicted of
UAM but quashed by COA as no ACT committed
Bland (1993)- stopping care f patient in their best interest doesn't amount to actus
reus- bland was in persistent vegetative state and doctors asked to stop feeding him
after 3 years knowing this would lead to his death court ruled they could do so.
Factual causation:
White (1910)- put cyanide in mothers drink to kill her but she had heart attack before
that so factually wasn't the cause.. therefore no conviction of murder.
Pagett (1983)- held pregnant girlfriend hostage and used her as shield against police
fire, which she died from and he was convicted of manslaughter ­ if it wasn't for his
actions it wouldn't have happened.
Legal causation:
Kimsey (1996)- D in high speed car chase with freind lost control and friend died. Jury
directed that doesn't have to be substantial cause of death a trifling so slight link is
enough- D convicted of causing death by dangerous driving + was upheld by COA
Blaue (1975) ­ thin skull rule- V was stabbed by D and needed blood transfusion, she
refused because of morals and died, D was convicted of murder as had to take her as
he found her (someone who didn't want blood transfusion)

Other pages in this set

Page 2

Preview of page 2

Here's a taster:

Intervening acts:
Third party: (usually medical)
Smith (1959)- operating and substantial cause= D to still be liable- D stabbed v in fight
and at medical centre artificial respiration made it worse by 75% chance of survival
reduced but D still guilty of murder, cause was substantial+ operating.…read more

Page 3

Preview of page 3

Here's a taster:

Direct/oblique intent:
Maloney (1985)-D and stepdad were drunk seeing who could load gun quickest he was
fastest and V told him he wouldn't shoot so he did and killed him was convicted of
murder but on appeal it was quashed.…read more

Page 4

Preview of page 4

Here's a taster:

Hol quashed convictions and overrulled caldwell, saying D couldn't be guilty if risk
wasn't realised by him.
Adomako-Gross negligence manslaughteris only place where nnegligence is really
used, a duty existed the anesthetist breached it so grossly it could be considered
Sweet v Parsley (1969)- charged with `being concered in management of premisis used
to smoke cannibis' Hol held she was not guilty because she had no knowledge of it and
many acts require D to `knowlingly' do something.…read more

Page 5

Preview of page 5

Here's a taster:

Hibbert (1869)-met 14 yr old girl on street took her and had sex with her , the age
aspect was strict liability but it was required he have mens rea for her taking which he
didn't as didn't know she was inher fathers custody so wasn't charged.
Callow and Tillstone (1990)- butcher asked vet if meat was ok for human consumption
vet said it was but it wasn't, he offered it for sale and butcher was convicted of
`exposing unsound meat for sale'.…read more

Page 6

Preview of page 6

Here's a taster:

RvG (2008)- 15 y old boy had consensual sex with gril he thought was 15, she was
actually 12 but sgreed she told him she was 15.G was prosecuted for `rape of a child
under 13' pleaded guilty as was advised it was strict liability. Was taken to HoL for
breach of human rights
6(1)'fair procedure'- they said not concerned with content of law and 6(2)'presumed
innocent'- they said didn't say what mental or other elements should be.…read more

Page 7

Preview of page 7

Here's a taster:

Seers (1984)-D suffered chronic reactive depression + killed wife. In trial juge directed
jury defence only available to partially insane/ people on the borderline of insanity.
Was convicted of murder but CoA quashed it for manslaugther as diminished
repsonsiblity coverswide range of mental conditions.
Hobson-D tried for murder of abusive alcoholic partner, judge left question of
provocation/self defence to jury not mentioning diminshed responsibility.…read more

Page 8

Preview of page 8

Here's a taster:

Duffy (1949)- d (abused wife) argued with husband, left room changed clothes and
when he was in bed, attacked him with hammerand hatchet, murder conviction was
upheld as there must be a `sudden temporary loss of selfcontrol'.…read more

Page 9

Preview of page 9

Here's a taster:

Lamb (1967)- was playing with revolver and he and friend thought it wouldn't fire, he
pulled trigger and killed friend but was held he hadnt done unlawful act as friend didn't
apprehend violence.
Lowe(1973) found to willfully have neglected son, Judge said if this was found then he
was also guilty of manslaughter, Coa quashed manslaughter conviction as wilful
neglect is an ommision not act, which cannot support unlawful act manslaughter.…read more

Page 10

Preview of page 10

Here's a taster:

V died d's convition based on
ulawful act manslaughter was quashed as he again didn't do the act, ( a duty could
however exist so GNM conviction was suggested.)
Rogers ­ held belt around V's arm to aid injection of drug, CoA said it was unreal to
separate the torniquet and injecting so if V had of died D would be liable for unlawful
act manslaughter.…read more



thank you so much, this is great!


wew, great job ^.^ ty 

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all resources »