Causation

?
What is the definition of 'but-for'?.
But-for the Defendant's action, would the Victim had suffered the same result?
1 of 6
What is the definition for 'De Minimus'?
The defendant does not have to be the sole, or even main cause of the victims result, but must play a significant role.
2 of 6
What is the 'thin skull test'?
Take the victim as you find him. The defendant cannot use the attributes of the victim to reduce liabilty.
3 of 6
What does 'Novus Actus Interveniens' translate to?
New Act Intervening.
4 of 6
Read the case of R v. White 1910. Was he guilty or not guilty and why?
He was not guilty. This is because before the poison could take effect on his mother she suffered a fatal heart attack. But-for the defendant's actions would she still have suffered that fatal heart attack? The answer is yes, she would.
5 of 6
Read this scenario. D pushes V from a cliff. A driver falls asleep at the wheel and crashes his car over the cliff, killing the unconscious V. Guilty or not guilty of murder?
Not guilty of murder. It was not reasonably forseeable that a car would hit the victim after he had been pushed from the cliff.
6 of 6

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

The defendant does not have to be the sole, or even main cause of the victims result, but must play a significant role.

Back

What is the definition for 'De Minimus'?

Card 3

Front

Take the victim as you find him. The defendant cannot use the attributes of the victim to reduce liabilty.

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

New Act Intervening.

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

He was not guilty. This is because before the poison could take effect on his mother she suffered a fatal heart attack. But-for the defendant's actions would she still have suffered that fatal heart attack? The answer is yes, she would.

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 law resources »