Law Case Cards

  • Created by: Seacon01
  • Created on: 16-12-14 20:23
Actus Reus
The physical element of the crime
1 of 84
Mens Rea
The mental element of the crime
2 of 84
Hill v Baxter
The act or omission must be voluntary on the part of the defendant
3 of 84
This is a state of affairs case so it does not need to be done voluntary
4 of 84
Defendant was guilty due to his failure to complete his contractual duty
5 of 84
Gibbins v Proctor
The defendants were guilty due to their duty through relationship
6 of 84
Stone v Dobinson
They were guilty because they took on the duty voluntarily and then neglected that duty
7 of 84
a duty through ones official position
8 of 84
The defendant was guilty as his actions set in motion a series of events
9 of 84
But for test... But for White poisoning the drink, his mother would have died anyway
10 of 84
The defendant actons contributed significantly to the end result
11 of 84
The original wound was still an operating and substantial cause
12 of 84
It is not unusual for the tracheotomy to become blocked so the defendant was convicted of murder
13 of 84
The defendant was not liable for the victims death as the victim died of medical treatment and not the stab wound.... Doctors actions were so potent that they rendered the defendants actions irrelevant
14 of 84
Thin Skull Rule - Take your victim as you find them
15 of 84
Take your victmi as you find them
16 of 84
The bleeding artery was a result of the defendants conduct and his conduct made an "operative and significant contribution to the death"
17 of 84
The Daftness Test - Has the victim done something so daft that no reasonable man could have foreseen it?
18 of 84
Williams v Davis
In the agony of the moment a man may act without htought or deliberation
19 of 84
A decision to bring about the prohibited consequence
20 of 84
Was the prohibited consequence a virtual certaity from the defendants actions?.... Did the defendant foresee the prohibited consequence as a virtual certainty from his actions?
21 of 84
Matthew v Alleyne
Foresight of consequences is not ntention, it is a rule of evidence
22 of 84
Did the defendant foresee the prohibited consequence occurring from his actions?... Did the defendant go ahead and take that risk?
23 of 84
His direct intent to hit the man was transferred to the woman
24 of 84
Intention cannot be transferred between different categories of offences
25 of 84
Thabo Meli
The actus reus and mens rea were combined in a series of events and the defendants were found guilty of murder
26 of 84
R v Church
Same legal principle as Thabo Meli
27 of 84
Where there is a continuing act for the actus reus and at some point ehilr the act is still going on the defendant has the necessary mens rea, then the two will coincide and the defendant will be found guilty
28 of 84
Age related offences are strict liability so the defendants were found guilty
29 of 84
Sweet v Parsley
Serious offences cannot be strict liability. She was not guilty because she was not aware
30 of 84
Presumption Mens Rea is required... Difference between truly criminal offences and merely regulatory offences... Clearly excludes Mens Rea... Social concern or public safety... Aim has to be to encourage greater vigilance
31 of 84
Alphacell v Woodward
Factories pumps blocked and overflowed into a river, they were charged with pollution. Charginf them encourages greather vigilance and it was also a public safety concern
32 of 84
Defendant charged with broadcasting on an unlicensed radio channel. It is a regulatory offence and also a public saftey concern as it can take up emergency services bandwidth
33 of 84
Common Assault
Causing the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful violence through gestures, words or silence
34 of 84
Common assault can come from gestures
35 of 84
Meade v Belt
Apprehend violonce through wordd
36 of 84
Can apprehend violonce through silence
37 of 84
Intention or recklessness to cause the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful violonce
38 of 84
Smith v CSWPS
Immediate violonce is the victims decision and that is enough to convict the defendant of common assault
39 of 84
Common Battery
Unlawful application of force to another
40 of 84
Man hits woman, she drops child, hes charged with battery - Force can be applied indirectly
41 of 84
Janiter touching pupils skirt - Force only has to be minimal
42 of 84
Collins v Willcock
For battery the force must be done by an act and not an omission
43 of 84
Intention or recklessness for the application of force
44 of 84
ABH can be caused indirectly
45 of 84
Section 20 OAPA
Wounding or inflicting grevious bodily harm
46 of 84
Defendant shot the victim in the eye with a pellet gun, no blood - No blood so there was no wounding
47 of 84
DPP v Smith
Really Serious Harm - Grevious Bodily Harm
48 of 84
Section 18 OAPA
Wounding or causing GBH with intent
49 of 84
Blyth v Bimingham Waterworks
Negligence is failing to do something or doing something a reasonable man would not do
50 of 84
Wells v Cooper
The reasonable man is a reasonably competent person.. The defendant reached the standard of a reasonably competent carpenter
51 of 84
Nettleship v Weston
The reasonable man is not a learner
52 of 84
The must be a respectable body of opinion to support the actions of the defendants was sufficient
53 of 84
Bolam + it must be shown that the actions were reasonable, weighed up the benefits and risks
54 of 84
Roe v Minister Of Health
Judged on the knowledge of the time
55 of 84
Mullin v Richards
Defendant has to be judged as having the same foresight as a normal 15 year old.. Under 18's judged on someone the same age as them
56 of 84
Risk to the claimant was higher so the defendant should have taken extra precautions
57 of 84
Standard of care is raised if the employer nkows an employee is likely to suffer an injury
58 of 84
Bolton v Stone
The risk was so small that the defendant did not have to guard against it
59 of 84
Haley v London Electricity Board
it is reasonably foreseeable that a person with impaired sight would use the pavement.. A reasonable man would have protected against the risk
60 of 84
shutting the factory would not have been reasonable
61 of 84
Because it was an emergency there was a valid reason to take the risk of not tying the jack down
62 of 84
Emergency situation had to be taken into account... Courts did not want to put off rescuers
63 of 84
Donoghue v Stevenson
Neighbour Principle
64 of 84
Caparo v Dickman
New Precedent - 3 Part Test
65 of 84
Kent v Griffiths
It was reasonably foreseeable that a person who is sick would be further injured if the ambulance took too long to arrive
66 of 84
Jolley v Sutton
Reasonably foreseeable that children would play on the boat and get injured
67 of 84
Bourhill v Young
No proximity between the parties
68 of 84
McLoughlin v O'Brien
Mother sewd person who caused accident as she got depression - Has proximity of relationship to the other injured parties
69 of 84
It is not fair, just and reasonable to impose liability on the police to protect every potential victim
70 of 84
MPC v Reeves
Man committed suicide in custody - He was known as a suicide risk. It was fair, just and reasonable to put him on suicide watch
71 of 84
Not fair, just and reasonable to impose all prisoners to be on suicide watch
72 of 84
But for the defendants breach of duty, would the claimants damage had have occurred?
73 of 84
Could not be proven on the balance of probablilities that the defendants actions caused the blindness
74 of 84
Smith v Littlewoods
Vandlas were uncommon in the area so it broke the chain as it was an interveining act
75 of 84
Is it foreseeable that someone that develops a head injury would become depressed?... It is alos foreseeable that someone with depression would commit suicide?
76 of 84
The Wagon Mound No.1
Was the kind of damage reasonably foreseeable by the defendant at the time of the breach
77 of 84
Hughes v Lord Advocate
Burns from the oil lamp were reasonably foreseeable by the defendant therefore burns from an explosion were also foreseeable
78 of 84
Bradford v Robinsons Rentals
Cold related injuries were the kind of damage so it doesnt matter that it was more severe
79 of 84
Smith v Leechbrain
Thin Skull individuals can claim for any injury no matter how unforeseeable
80 of 84
Robinson v Post Office
As soon as the claimant became allergic to the drug he became a thin skull individual so he can claim for everything
81 of 84
Scott v London and St Katherine Dock
The thing that caused the harm was under the defendants control... The accident would not normally have happened unless negligence was involved... the defendant cannot provide another explenation for the injury caused
82 of 84
Mahon v Osbourne
The claimant went for an operation, Claimant was unwell and died after the surgery and it was found that a swab had been left inside the claimant.
83 of 84
Pearson v North Western Gas Board
The gas company proved they acted reasonably by carrying out precautions, therefore the claimants claim for negligence failed
84 of 84

Other cards in this set

Card 2


Mens Rea


The mental element of the crime

Card 3


Hill v Baxter


Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4




Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5




Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards




Really helpful - 84 key criminal law cases and a quick summary of each

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal law resources »