Law 03 NFO UAM

Assault - Ireland, Turberville, Colling v Wilcock, Constanza 

s.47 ABH - ABH must have an assault or battery (Chan Fook, DPP v Smith) 

s.20 GBH - Wounding and GBH (Eisenhower, Smith, Burtsow, Bollom) 

MUST EXPLAIN ONE OFFENCE TO CARRY ON WITH UAM 

Lamb - Act must be a crime,

Khan and Khan / Lowe -  An omission is not enough for UAM 

Church - Objective test for dangerousness: would  a reasonable person see the risk of harm from the act 

Mitchell - Act does not need to aimed at the victim 

Birstow, Dunn and Delay - A burgalry can be dangerous under the right circumstances

JM and SM - Court of Appeal stated that recognsing the risk of some harm was enough - it does not need to be a specific type of harm 

Pagett - Supporting the 'But For' test and therefore the factual cause 

White - Aggaint the "But For' test and therefore cannot be liable

Smith - Defendant is the overwhelming cause of the harm they are the legal cause

Cheshire - Poor medical treatment will not normally break caustion if D has made a significant factor to the death 

Malcherek - Turning off life support will not break the chain of causation 

Roberts - Foreseeable intervening act will not break the chain of causation

Williams - An unreasonable act will break the chain of caustion 

Cato - If D supplies and injects V it will not break causation 

Kennedy - Self-injection of drugs does break the chain of causation 

Blaue - Particular weakness does not break the chain of causation (Think Skull Rule) 

RE-STATE THE MENS REA FOR THE UNLAWFUL ACT (ASSAULT, BATTERY, ABH, GBH) 

Mohan - States intention is the decision to bring about the state of affairs 

Cunningham - Subjective recklessness is when the defendant recognises the ris but goes ahead anyway 

Latimer - Aiming at one person but hitting another is enough to be liable 

Fagan - Continuing act AR before MR 

Thabo Meli - Series of events MR before AR