A2 Law - Unit 3 Revision

  • Created by: chelsea
  • Created on: 24-10-12 20:20


  • Intro:life sentence --> most serious criminal offence --> common law offence --> AR & MR
  • Actus Reus= Unlawful killing (Sir Edward Coke) --> factual causation/ 'but for test' (White) --> legal causation/substantial cause (Smith) (Cheshire) 
  • Other points:escape case (Roberts) --> Thin Skull Rule/ medical condition (Blaue) --> Novu Actus Intervienens/ Act of God
  • Mens Rea: Malice aforethought (intent to cause GBH) --> Direct intent (White) Oblique intent (Woolin) (Handcock.V.Shankland)


1 of 11

Murder Case List

  • (White) - AR/Factual causation & direct intent
  • (Smith) - legal causation
  • (Cheshire) - legal causation
  • (Roberts) - escape cases
  • (Blaue) - thin skull rule
  • (Woolin) - oblique intent
  • (Handcock & Shankland) - oblique intent
  • (Latimer) - transferred malice
  • (Savage) - transferred malice
  • (Fagan) - contemporaneity rule
  • (Thabo Meli) - one transaction
2 of 11


D tried to poison his mother with potassium cyanide in her wine but she died from a heart attack instead - no actus reus found as White did not meet factual and legal causation. 


3 of 11


D a solider, stabbed another solider who was then dropped twice by medical officers and died, D was found guilty because they met the needs of legal causation --> was the substantial/main cause to V's death. 


4 of 11


Argument in a Fish & Chip shot --> D shot V --> V had to have a tracheotomony and died due to cause with this --> --> his wounds were virtually healed --> however it was said that the doctors were not reckless --> medical treatment would only break the chain of causation if it is so independent on D's acts and in itself is potent to causing death to V.                                                  


5 of 11


D gave V a lift and he made sexual advances to her, V jumped from the car, V was injured, D was found liable for her injuries.


6 of 11


D stabbed V multiple times (4). V needed a blood transfusion to live but declined as she was a Jehovah Witness --> D was found guilty as the courts declared you take your victim as you find them 


7 of 11


D threw his crying baby at his pram, he missed and the baby died --> Lord Steyn stated 'there is intention where D foresaw death or serious injury as a 'virtually certain' result. 


8 of 11

R.V.Handcock & Shankland

A minor threw blocks of concrete (bricks e.c.t) at a taxi --> this case developed a quotation --> 'Greater the probability of a consequence occurring the more likely it was intended' - Lord Scarman 


9 of 11


D threw a beer glass at IV but the glass slipped out of D's hand hitting AV --> D was found guilty. 


10 of 11


Does the contemporaneity rule apply? Has the actus reus occurred first and the mens rea developed as in (Fagan) --> D left car on policeman's foot, was asked to move it but left it there. It was said that D developed the mens rea when he did not move the car (Continuing act)


11 of 11


Charlotte Richardson



Charlotte Richardson


Sam Steele smells

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Law of Tort resources »