Actus Reus

Question 1

Rule of law issues with case law on omissions

Answer 1

Bland, absent a duty an omission won’t be a criminal act, contrast with speck. Moral ambiguity

Question 2

What is standard for breach of duty?

Answer 2

S & D [‘77] LJ Lane: Reckless disregard of danger to health or welfare by indifference to obvious risk of injury to health or by actually foreseeing the risk and running it anyway

Question 3

Did D cause X in results crime

Answer 3

1. COMMON SENSE: Kennedy (no. 2)
2. FACTUAL: Hughes [2013] Need something open criticism beyond mere presence on road
3. OPERATING & SUBSTANTIAL: Former show NAI, latter not ‘transient nor trifling’

Question 4

Break in chain of causation

Answer 4

K (no.2) Affirms NAI doctrine

Pagett (‘83) Reasonable act of SD against the act of accused leads to the death of the 3rd party, accused has crim. resp

Question 5

Medical treatment as the NAI

Answer 5

Smith [1959] To be NA the first wound need be ‘merely the setting’ for the second cause

Jordan [1956] (Exceptional). Wound virtually healed and medical treatment grossly negligent

Question 6

Can acts of V. break chain of causation?

Answer 6

Robert [1971] Was injury reasonably forseeable as a natural result of D’s conduct?
- William & Davies [1992] (MODIFIES) Was within range of responses, bearing in mind particular characteristics of V & that V may act without thought & deliberation

Blaue [1975] TS rule + Person as a whole (Daft/ unexpected)

• R & B distinct via. act/ omm.
• B special as included HR of freedom of rel.

Dear [1996] V re-opens wounds and D guilty as held to still be operating and substantial cause