Elements of an offence Flashcards
(30 cards)
Attorney General’s Reference (No.2 1992)
Two-stage test for automatism 1. Whether or not there is in fact evidence of automatism or whether it is in fact less than automatic conduct and 2. Whether it is sane or insane
Bratty v AG for NI, Mitchell
D’s conduct must be voluntary
Attorney General’s Reference (No.2 1992)
Affirming Broome v Perkins
There must be a complete destruction of voluntary control and therefore any evidence of control will remove a plea of automatism e.g. hitting small cars but not big cars when driving
Hill v Baxter
Being attacked by bees or having a fit while driving, for example, acts akin to a novus actus - for prosecution to prove voluntariness
McNaghten
Every man is presumed sane unless the contrary is proved - show to the civil standard that he a. was completely defect of reason due to a disease of the mind and b. did not know the nature or quality of what he was doing or that he did not know that it was legally wrong
Miller
Generally no liability for omissions - unless DOC
Also DOC if prior conduct
Stone and Dobinson
Assumption of a duty of care - exception to liability by omission
Pittwood
Exception to liability by omission - contractual
s170 Road Traffic Act
duty to act imposed by statute
Airedale NHS Trust v Bland
‘Cessation of a duty to act’ when someone is on life support, no viable chance of living, not a positive act so not euthanasia
White (but for test)
Pagett (fault of D - chain of causation)
Must show factually and in law that D caused the offence
Hughes
De minimis principle - D’s actions must not be so insignificant so as to have not actually caused
Blaue
Thin skull rule - take your victim as you find him
Latiff
Empress Car Co
3rd party has to intervene ‘free and deliberately’ to exploit the first crime to be a novus actus - where the party’s response is reasonable there is no NA
- Shows different grades of causation - here was higher
Roberts
A victim’s contribution is not a NA unless it is ‘grossly unreasonable’ - ‘reasonable foreseeability of V doing that’
Dear
A refusal to accept medical treatment is not a NA
Kennedy (No.2)
Where a ‘free and informed’ actor injects themselves with illegal drugs, this will be a NA and D will not be liable for unlawful act manslaughter - NB irrelevant to gross neg. manslaughter
Byram
If D finds the vein and puts the tip of the needle in then may be culpable
Smith, Cheshire
Jordan (virtually irrelevant)
Only ‘abnormal’ or ‘grossly negligent’ treatment will constitute a NA - if the V had life threatening injuries on entering hospital then NA virtually irrelevant
DPP v Smith
The irrebuttable presumption of intention if it was a natural and probable consequence of D’s actions here was overruled by s8 CJA 1967 -
Moloney
L Bridge - intention - (i) Was death or serious injury a natural consequence of the act? (ii) Did D realise? If yes then proof of intent but not conclusive
Hancock and Shankland
Moloney guidelines were defective - must add probability, the more probable the more foreseeable
Nedrick, Wollin
Matthews and Alleyne (murder only)
Lord Lane CJ - jury question - ‘was it a virtual certainty and did D believe it as such?’ - M&A proof of intent but not obliged – Wollin affirming Ned but changing ‘infer’ to ‘find’ – now leading authority
Cunningham
Subjective recklessness - the D himself must have realised
