Lord Salmon: There must be an intentional act, which is unlawful, objectively dangerous and which causes death
1 of 16
Lowe (1976)
The act must be a positive act and not an omission to act
2 of 16
Franklin (1883)
The act must be unlawful in the sense that it must constitute a criminal offence
3 of 16
Lamb (1967)
Both the AR and MR elements of the unlawful act must be established
4 of 16
Meeking (2012)
The act is unlawful if contrary to statute (e.g. pulling handbrake)
5 of 16
Church (1966)
Edmund Davies J: The unlawful act must be such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm, albeit not serious harm
6 of 16
Larkin (1944)
Humphreys J: A dangerous act is an act which is likely to injure another person; the act is dangerous if it presents a risk of physical injury to another person
7 of 16
Bristow (2013)
Burglary in this case was dangerous due to risk of someone intervening to prevent def’s escape; there was only a single track to escape with vehicles
8 of 16
Ball (1989)
The def’s mistaken belief that the act was not dangerous could not be attributed to the reasonable man
9 of 16
Watson (1989)
The act will be dangerous if the sober and reasonable person, sharing the knowledge the def gained during the commission of the unlawful act would have recognised risk of some harm to the victim
10 of 16
Adomako (1995)
The prosecution would need to prove that the def owed the victim a duty of care, that they breached this duty, that the breached caused the victim’s death and that her act or omission was grossly negligent
11 of 16
Willoughby (2004) and Evans (2009)
Whether a duty of care exists is a question of law to be determined by the judge
12 of 16
Adomako (1995)
The ordinary principles of negligence apply to ascertain whether duty of care exists
13 of 16
Caparo v Dickman (1990)
Breach of duty – reasonable man test
14 of 16
Adomako (1995)
Lord Mackay: The jury should consider whether having regard to the risk of death involved, the conduct of the defendant was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount in their judgment to a criminal act or omission
15 of 16
Misra (2004)
A reasonably prudent person must have foreseen a serious risk of death in the situation
16 of 16
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
The act must be a positive act and not an omission to act
Back
Lowe (1976)
Card 3
Front
The act must be unlawful in the sense that it must constitute a criminal offence
Back
Card 4
Front
Both the AR and MR elements of the unlawful act must be established
Back
Card 5
Front
The act is unlawful if contrary to statute (e.g. pulling handbrake)
Comments
No comments have yet been made