Actus reus

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Kristina
  • Created on: 13-03-14 23:29
Larsonneur
sometimes a circumstance can constitute the AR (French citizen deported back to the UK and found there as an alien)
1 of 22
A-G's ref No.2 of 1992
the defence of automatism requires "the total destruction of voluntary control" (driving w/o awareness a medical condition, but being impaired w/ partial control insufficient for automatism)
2 of 22
Airedale NHS Trust v Bland
Characterised withdrawal of treatment as omission, which would only be culpable if there was a duty to act - no duty to act as not in best interests of patient (re 17 yr old boy injured in Hillsborough left in PVS)
3 of 22
Miller
Creation of danger creates duty to act - culpable for omissions here (lighting fire by dropping cigarette in sleep - when he woke he moved to another room and did nothing about the fire - preferred over continuing act as easier to explain to jury
4 of 22
Stone and Dobinson
duty to act can arise in relation to duty of care from relationship (assumed a duty of care as she was a blood relation living with them "indifferent to an obvious risk of injury to health" or foresaw it and ran it anyway)
5 of 22
Pittwood
Can be a contractual duty to act - omission here sufficient for conviction (rail employee negligently left open crossing gate)
6 of 22
Gibbins and Proctor
Duty to act based on parent and child relationship
7 of 22
Roberts
chain of causation only broken by V's acts if so "daft" that no man could reasonably have foreseen them (girl threatened by Roberts while in his car; sustained ABH when jumping out of the car to escape)
8 of 22
Jordan
Medical acts can break the chain but only if treatment really bad and original wound nearly healed (stabbed w/ knife - wrong antibiotic, too much liquid through IV leading to death-causing condition)
9 of 22
Smith
chain not broken by medical treatment as original wound still "operating and substantial cause" even if there was some other operating cause (stabbed; dropped twice off stretcher plus incorrect treatment)
10 of 22
Malcherek
Normal treatment by doctors not breaking chain - initial assaults still operating, substantial, continuing (re doctors deciding victims were brain dead and removing machines)
11 of 22
Cheshire
to establish causation, does not need to be sole or main cause provided "a significant contribution" (man shot in neck; tracheotomy tube inserted; windpipe obstructed due to narrowing by the scar)
12 of 22
Hayward
"thin skull rule"
13 of 22
Blaue
extends thin skull rule to religious beliefs (woman stabbed; refused a blood transfusion; died; would have survived had she received it)
14 of 22
Pagett
no break by involuntary act of a third party (compulsion + law enforcement duty)
15 of 22
Michael
No break by infancy or mental disorder
16 of 22
Kennedy
A "free, voluntary and informed" decision bu the victim can break the chain (re injecting heroin from a syringe a friend had supplied and dying)
17 of 22
Dear
No break where V re-opens wounds and dies (see Kennedy? conflict?) as wounds still significant & operating cause
18 of 22
Hughes
Causation requires "contribute in more than a minimal way" re causing death by driving
19 of 22
Dhaliwal
V's decision to commit suicide may not break chain between husband's bullying & her death
20 of 22
Bush v Commonwealth
unforeseeable, extraordinary natural events may break chain (surgeon passing on scarlet fever)
21 of 22
Gowans v Hillman
No break if injuries vendered V vulnerable to normal infection
22 of 22

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

the defence of automatism requires "the total destruction of voluntary control" (driving w/o awareness a medical condition, but being impaired w/ partial control insufficient for automatism)

Back

A-G's ref No.2 of 1992

Card 3

Front

Characterised withdrawal of treatment as omission, which would only be culpable if there was a duty to act - no duty to act as not in best interests of patient (re 17 yr old boy injured in Hillsborough left in PVS)

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

Creation of danger creates duty to act - culpable for omissions here (lighting fire by dropping cigarette in sleep - when he woke he moved to another room and did nothing about the fire - preferred over continuing act as easier to explain to jury

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

duty to act can arise in relation to duty of care from relationship (assumed a duty of care as she was a blood relation living with them "indifferent to an obvious risk of injury to health" or foresaw it and ran it anyway)

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 AR resources »