Causation Flashcards

(19 cards)

1
Q

Bone v HMA

A

Accused in abusive relationship. Duty to take reasonable steps in circumstances fulfilled.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

R v Instan

A

Held that assumed responsibility of care had not been fulfilled. There was an offence for failing to fulfil.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

McCue v Currie

A

Culpable and reckless fireraising conviction quashed as fire raising had been accidental

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

R v Pitwood

A

Failure to fulfil contractual duties led to manslaughter conviction

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Hendry v HMA

A

“But for” test - factual causation. Accused was convicted of culpable homicide, actions were important to death. Heart attack

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

R v Blaue

A

Refusal of medical treatment does not break chain of causation. Must take victim as you find them.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

R v Roberts

A

Girl jumped from moving car. Intervening acts of victim will only break chain of causation if unreasonable/unforseeable. No break in chain here.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

McDonald v HMA

A

Flat escape. Victims actions were forseeable. Accused liable for causing death.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

R v Jordan

A

Novus actus intervenieus. Negligent medical treatment represented break in chain of causation here. Wound had ceased to be operative cause.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

R v Paggett

A

Negligent medical treatment did not break chain in causation. Stab wounds were still a contributing factor to death.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Roberts v Hamilton

A

Murder conviction upheld as mens rea transferred to second person.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Palazzo v Copeland

A

Motive was irrelevant and man had committed breach of peace by trying to prevent one. Firing gun caused fear and alarm

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Allan v Patterson

A

Defined recklessness for purposes of reckless driving offence. Below standard of careful and competent driver.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Quinn v Cunningham

A

Mens rea of crime includes an intention to commit a wrong or utter disregard of consequences. Showing indifference to consequences.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Smith v Donnelly

A

Breach of peace definition was accepted as compatible with ECHR. Post case the definition was reformulated:

  • conduct severe enough to cause alarm to ordinary people
  • threaten disturbance to community
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Hatcher v Hamilton

A

Swearing in a home was not deemed to be a breach of peace. Public element was not satisfied.

17
Q

Bowes v McGowan

A

Conversation relating to passenger’s sex life was deemed to be breach of peace. Publically licensed taxi on public roads.

18
Q

Harris v HMA

A

Public element of breach of the peace - does not require conduct to occur in public. Must either be detectable by members of public or realistically capable of being discovered.

19
Q

Borwick v Urquhart

A

No breach of the peace for filming as only the other party guests could be disturbed by it. There was however culpable and reckless conduct in supply of alcohol - Khaliq.