1.3 Results or consequences as part of AR Flashcards
(32 cards)
Result crime
crimes which require a result
rules of causation apply
Factual causation is
the “but for” test
White
not established - cyanide did not kill her, unrelated heart failure did, so convicted of attempted murder, not murder
Benge
track was up when train came. guilty of manslaughter. Immaterial that other staff also negligent
Dalloway
Gross negligence manslaughter. Even if he had not been driving negligently, D would not have been able to avoid hitting V even if he was driving properly
D’s negligent driving (act) was not legal cause of death
Smith 1959 and Cato 1976
D’s conduct must be “more than a minimal contribution”
Legal causation test 3:
The chain will be broken by a “new intervening act”
- acts of third parties
- medical profession
- natural events
- refusal of medical treatment (by V) & pre-existing conditions (of V)
- self-harm (by V)
- heroin (taken by V)
- escape (by V)
Pagett
Rafferty
conduct of third party is “free, deliberate and informed”
Pagett - conduct of police was not a “free” reaction
Rafferty - D left scene meanwhile V drowned by others. D = manslaughter but quashed on appeal. Other’s conduct broke chain of causation
Jordan
D stabbed V but administration of drug by doctors, which V was allergic to, broke the chain of causation (“palpably wrong”)
Wound was healing and was part of the history.
Rarely breaks the chain of causation.
Smith
D stabbed V and was given “thoroughly bad” treatment which affected chance of recovery. Conviction upheld on appeal as original act still “operating and substantial cause of death”
Cheshire
D shot V and whilst healing, tracheotomy led to narrowing of windpipe which went undetected.
Positive act of negligence will break the chain but omission (as in Cheshire) will not.
Perkins
D leaves V in building which is destroyed by earthquake. Intervening act not foreseeable.
D leaves V on beach with incoming tide. Intervening act foreseeable and D’s conduct is operating and substantial cause of death.
- refusal of medical treatment and pre-existing conditions
will not break chain if D’s original act/omission remains an “operating and substantial” cause of result
Holland
D cut V’s finger and despite warnings, refused amputation and later died of lockjaw.
D guilty of murder. No break in the chain
Blaue
V (jehovah) refused blood transfusion and D guilty of manslaughter
“take his victim as he finds him” “thin skull rule”
- pre-existing condition
In offences against the person, D will be legal cause of the result even though normal person would not suffer the result - Dyson (child died of meningitis but D was legal cause)
Hayward
D guilty of manslaughter of wife who died of heart failure when running away from him. D had to take V as he found her.
Dear
D injured V after V sexually assaulted D’s child. V, depressed, picked at wounds and died of blood loss.
D was legal cause of V’s death even though V was mentally depressed
Pre-existing condition does not prevent D from being legal cause of result
People v Lewis
V who had fatal gunshot wound slit throat and died. D guilty of manslaughter - wound still significant and operating cause of death
Dhaliwal
V hanged herself after abuse from D.
case stopped by CoA - no medical evidence that abuse caused distress
Cato
D injected V with heroin and V later died.
D caused death factually and legally
Unlawful act manslaughter
Kennedy (No. 2)
D supplied syringe but V administered and later died.
Held that the free, voluntary and informed act of V broke chain.
D not guilty.
- escape cases (“fright and flight”)
Roberts - V jumped from moving car to avoid assault by D and suffered actual bodily harm.
HELD D’s conduct remained the operation and substantial cause of the result
Escape reasonably foreseeable
Corbett
D caused V death when V made reasonably foreseeable attempt to escape beating by D but was run over by car.
