Case Test

HideShow resource information
Mc'Naghten
Defect of reason, Disease of the mind, Did not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing
1 of 40
Defect of reason - Clarke (1972)
She was not absent minded and this does not amount to a defect of reason
2 of 40
Disease of mind - R v Kemp (1957)
Hardening of arteries was a 'disease of the mind' within the Mc'Naghten rules so he could not rely on automatism
3 of 40
Disease of mind - R v Burgess (1991)
Internal factor which is manifested in violence is an abnormality of the mind
4 of 40
Disease of mind - R v Hennessey (1989)
The hyperglaecemic state was caused by the disease of diabetes itself and not an outside factor of injection of insulin
5 of 40
Did not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing - Nature and Quality of his act
Don't know the situation
6 of 40
Did not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing - Nature and Quality of his act
Dont know what you're doing
7 of 40
Did not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing - Nature and Quality of his act
Did not appreciate the consequences
8 of 40
Did not know what you were doing was wrong - R v Windle (1952)
If the defendant knows the act was legally wrong then they cannot plead insanity
9 of 40
Leading case of GNM - Adomako
'A duty of care exists on the part of the defendant for the claimant', 'A breach of duty that caused death', 'Gross negligence is such as to be considered criminal by a jury'
10 of 40
Stone v Dobinson (1977)
Duty taken on voluntarily
11 of 40
Litchfield (1998)
You owe a duty of care to your staff as it is a contractual duty
12 of 40
Wacker (2002)
A duty is owed under gross negligence manslaughter with someone you are complicit in a crime with
13 of 40
Evans (2009)
A duty of care is a matter of law, it is not for the jury to decide
14 of 40
Bateman
The gross negligence is such as to be considered criminal by a jury
15 of 40
Finlay (2001)
The defendants conduct did not show such disregard for the life and safety of others to amount to GN
16 of 40
Edwards (2001)
'Did the defendant ignore an obvious and serious danger ' or 'Did the defendant see an obvious and serious danger and decide to take the risk?'
17 of 40
The defendant must have committed an act which is:
Unlawful, Dangerous, Caused death and the defendant must have the mens rea for the unlawful act
18 of 40
Unlawful Act -Lamb (1967)
There was no unlawful act as the friend did not apprehend immediate unlawful violence
19 of 40
Dangerous Act - Church (1966)
A sober and reasonable person must see a risk of some harm
20 of 40
R v Ball (1989)
Will be judged on the actual facts, not what the defendant thought it to be
21 of 40
M and M (2012)
The Church test simply requires the jury to decide whetehr the unlawful act exposed the victim to the risk of some harm
22 of 40
Mitchell (1983)
It was foreseeable that some injury would be done to someone, you dont have to know the person the harm comes to
23 of 40
R v Carey (2006)
Cannot be convicted if a sober and reasonable man would not foresee some physical harm
24 of 40
Dawson (1985)
The harm foreseen must be physical harm, common assault is not enough for manslaughter
25 of 40
GoodFellow (1986)
The harm can be aimed at property if a sober and reasonable person would foresee this leading to injury to someone
26 of 40
Kennedy (2007)
Supplying the drugs did ont harm the victim physically, the victim took the decision to inject himself
27 of 40
Shohid (2003)
Didnt have the intention for murder because the inital attack was significantly serious of the cause of death but does not have to be the only cause
28 of 40
AG's Ref No.4 of 1980
The defendant can be convicted of murder if it cannot be shown which act from a series of previous events cause the death
29 of 40
Newbury v Jones (1976)
An ordinary and sober person must see a risk of some harm
30 of 40
Contributory Neglignece - Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945
Burden of proof on defendant to demonstrate: 1) The claimant failed to take proper care in the circumstances for their own safety, 2) The failure to take care was a contributory cause of the damage suffered
31 of 40
The claimant failed to take proper care in the circumstances for their own safety
Davies v Swan Motor Co (1949 - It is sufficient to show a lack of reasonable care by the plaintiff for his own safety
32 of 40
Gough (an infant) v Thorns (1966)
Young children cannot be held contributory negligent, older children may but only if they can in some way be held blameworthy
33 of 40
The failure to take care was a contributory cause of the damage suffered
1) Claimant is a party to blame for the accident happening 2) Claimant is not to blame but their actions may have made injuries/ losses worse than they would have been
34 of 40
Claimant is a party to blame for the accident happening
Brannon v Airtours (1999) - As he chose to stand on the table when there was a sign to say not to do it he was 50% to blame so damages were reduced
35 of 40
Claimant is not to blame but their actions may have made injuries/ losses worse than they would have been
Froom v Butcher - Not wearing seatbelt reduces damages by 25%, O'Connell v Jackson - Not wearing helmet reduces damages by 50%
36 of 40
Consent
applies when the claimant knows of a risk of the defendant acting negligently and freely accepts that risk
37 of 40
Morris v Murray (1990)
Claimant fully accepted risk of going in the plane even though he knew his friend was drunk so consent applies and no compensation agreed
38 of 40
Smith v Baker (1991)
Knowing or being aware of a risk is not the same as consenting to the risk
39 of 40
Haynes v Harwood (1935)
No consent as he was morally obliged to act
40 of 40

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

She was not absent minded and this does not amount to a defect of reason

Back

Defect of reason - Clarke (1972)

Card 3

Front

Hardening of arteries was a 'disease of the mind' within the Mc'Naghten rules so he could not rely on automatism

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

Internal factor which is manifested in violence is an abnormality of the mind

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

The hyperglaecemic state was caused by the disease of diabetes itself and not an outside factor of injection of insulin

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 INsanity, GNM, UAM and Defences to a claim in neglignece resources »