A2 Law - Unit 3 Revision

• 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)

• (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

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. 

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. 

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.                                                  

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.

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 

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. 

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 

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

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)