Actus Reus

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Edward
  • Created on: 27-02-16 17:31
Deller (1952)
A def will not be liable for a criminal offence unless the AR is proved
1 of 42
Hill v Baxter (1958)
Lord Goddard CJ: driver’s conduct in driving dangerously might be involuntary if he was stunned by a blow on head from stone – AR for dangerous driving would be involuntary and def escapes crim liability
2 of 42
Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993)
Switching off life-support machine was omission to act thus no resulting liability – Lord Goff: diff if doc admind lethal drug
3 of 42
Downes (1875)
Duty imposed on parent to act to provide medical assistance for his child
4 of 42
Gibbins and Proctor (1918)
G= father thus special relationship; P= vol’y ***’d resp’y
5 of 42
Smith (1979)
Suggests spouses owe duty to act to aid each other
6 of 42
Dr Arthur (1981)
Withholding food from Down Syndrome baby and allowing child to die was not unlawful as an omission
7 of 42
Nicholls (1874)
Brett J: if a person who has chosen to take charge of a helpless creature lets it die by wicked neglect, then that person is guilty of manslr
8 of 42
Instan (1893)
Lord Colderidge CJ: every legal duty is founded upon a moral oblign
9 of 42
Stone and Dobinson (1977)
Defs accepted respy as carers and once she became bed – bound, duty as helper – despite inadequate attempts
10 of 42
Ruffell (2003)
Def and V=friends; V was guest in def’s house, def also made efforts to revive V and left him on doorstep
11 of 42
Miller (1983)
Where the def innocently does an act which created a risk of personal inj or damage to prop and the def becomes aware of that risk, the law imposes a duty to act to avert or minimise the danger
12 of 42
DPP v Santana-Bermudez (2003)
Where someone by act or omission creates a danger and thus exposes another to a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury, which materialises, there is an evidential basis for the AR of an assault occasioning ABH
13 of 42
Dytham (1979)
A def may be under a public duty to act if he holds a position of authority or respy e.g. policeman on duty
14 of 42
Pittwood (1902)
A contract may give rise to a duty to act
15 of 42
Sheppard (1981)
Defs were convicted of causing cruelty to a child by wilful neglect – statutory duty
16 of 42
Fagan (1969)
Assault could not be committed by omission, although bypassed by continuing act theory
17 of 42
DPP v Santana-Bermudez
Suggests Assault could be commited by omission
18 of 42
White (1910)
But for test – but for the defs conduct, would the consequence have occurred?
19 of 42
Dalloway (1847)
But for test with child dying by horse
20 of 42
Mitchell (1983)
Successful applicn of but for test – old woman’s death by hip injury
21 of 42
Lane and Lane (1985)
Def’s could nt be guilty of manslr of their baby as the prosecution was unable to prove which one of the defs led to the death of the baby
22 of 42
Cato (1976)
De minimis principle – the prosn must prove that the defs conduct was more than minimal cause of prohibited conseq
23 of 42
Smith (1959)
A def will be liable cause of the conseq if his conduct was the ‘operating and substantial’ cause of that result
24 of 42
Pagett (1983)
A def’s conduct must contribute sig’y to the prohibited result
25 of 42
Benge (1865)
The accused’s act need not be the sole cause of that result
26 of 42
Dyos et al (1979)
def acquitted as prosn failed to prove which wound caused V’s death
27 of 42
Blaue (1975)
Thin skull rule extends beyond mere physical conditions and encompasses religious beliefs – the whole man
28 of 42
Hayward (1908)
Def was convicted of manslr- had to take V as he found her, even if thyroid condityion was unforeseen
29 of 42
Marjoram (2000)
Test=whether V’s response was one wihin a range of responses to be expected of a person in V’s situation, bearing V’s characteristics
30 of 42
Curley (1909)
Jelf J: the jumping out of the window was contributed to by def’s unlawful act – thus, convicted of mansl’r
31 of 42
Roberts (1971)
If V ‘s at in escaping was so daft as to make it V’s own voluntary act, the chain of causation is broken
32 of 42
Mackie (1973)
The test is not whether the escape itself was reasonable, but whether it was reasonably to be expected i.e. foreseeable
33 of 42
Lewis (2010)
CA: the nature of the escape by V must be a foreseeable conseq of the unlawful act
34 of 42
Williams and Davies (1992)
V’s act must be proportionate to the threat
35 of 42
Holland (1841)
Here, refusing amputation in 1841 was not unreasonable due to high degree of risk
36 of 42
Dear (1996)
As long as the def’s act was a cause of V’s death, it did not matter that it was not the sole cause
37 of 42
Kennedy (No 2) (2007)
V’s free and voluntary act of admin’g drugs to himself was fatal to any argument that the def had caused the drugs to be admin’d to V
38 of 42
Pagett (1983)
Conduct of police was reasonably foreseeable – they were actoing instinctively in self-def
39 of 42
Smith (1959)
Only if the neg medical treatment is so overwhelming as to make the original wound merely part of the history can it be said that the chain of causation is broken
40 of 42
Cheshire (1991)
The chain of causation is broken if the neg treatment was so independent of the defs act and in itself was so potent in causing death that they render the def’s act as insig
41 of 42
Jordan (1956)
Grossly neg or palpably wrong medical treatment will break the chain of causation
42 of 42

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Lord Goddard CJ: driver’s conduct in driving dangerously might be involuntary if he was stunned by a blow on head from stone – AR for dangerous driving would be involuntary and def escapes crim liability

Back

Hill v Baxter (1958)

Card 3

Front

Switching off life-support machine was omission to act thus no resulting liability – Lord Goff: diff if doc admind lethal drug

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

Duty imposed on parent to act to provide medical assistance for his child

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

G= father thus special relationship; P= vol’y ***’d resp’y

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 Criminal resources »