A2 - Law - Murder

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: jkav
  • Created on: 14-01-16 15:32
White (1910)
Mother died of a heart attack before poison administered by her son could take effect; chain of causation was broken.
1 of 16
Pagett (1983)
Police bullet killed girl being held as a human shield by defendant; defendant responsible for her death
2 of 16
Cato (1976)
Mutual injection of drugs was more thn a minimal cause of death
3 of 16
Blaue (1975)
Refusal of blood transfusion following stabbing not the main cause of death.
4 of 16
Jordan (1956)
Wrong administration of drug in hospital was a new intervening act.
5 of 16
Smith (1959)
Clumsy and inappropriate treatment of a soldier following a stabbing did not break the chain of caustaion
6 of 16
Cheshire (1991)
The victim, whose wounds were no longer life-threatening, died as a result of unusual complications; no break in chain of causation.
7 of 16
Malcherek and Steel (1981)
Two separate cases raised the same point of law; turning off a life support machine was not a new intervening act so no break in the chain of causation.
8 of 16
Roberts (1971)
Victim jumped from moving car to avoid sexual advances; chain of causation was not broken.
9 of 16
Williams (1991)
Victim broke chain of causation because his reaction was unreasonable.
10 of 16
Vickers (1957)
Intention to cause serious bodily is sufficeient for the mens rea of murder.
11 of 16
Moloney (1985)
Defendant killed his stepfather in drunken game; nothing less than the actual intention to kill or cause serious harm should be the mens rea in murder.
12 of 16
Hancock and Shankland (1986)
Striking miners dropped concrete blocks into the path of a taxi, killing its driver; foresight of consequences may amount to intention, but it is up to the jury.
13 of 16
Nedrick (1986)
A child died in a fire caused by the defendant; jury should ask itself two questions; if answer to both is 'yes', it may infer the probable intention.
14 of 16
Woollin (1998)
Defendant killed his baby son in a fit of temper; if the answers to the questions in Nedrick (1989) are 'yes', the jury must find, rather than infer, intention.
15 of 16
Matthews and Alleyne (2003)
Victim died as a result of being thrown into a river: foresight of consequences as being the same as intention is more like a rule of evidence.
16 of 16

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Police bullet killed girl being held as a human shield by defendant; defendant responsible for her death

Back

Pagett (1983)

Card 3

Front

Mutual injection of drugs was more thn a minimal cause of death

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

Refusal of blood transfusion following stabbing not the main cause of death.

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

Wrong administration of drug in hospital was a new intervening act.

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Murder resources »