Fatal offences - murder Flashcards
(16 cards)
Malcharek and steel
braindead is not a person in being
ag ref no3 1994
foetus not a person so instead alternative charge of child destruction
r v dytham
public position omission
The defendant was a police officer. He stood by whilst a bouncer kicked a man to death. He was charged with the offence of misconduct in a public officer. He argued that the offence could not be committed by an omission as it specifically requires misconduct.
r v miller
once a person creates a dangerous situation, they have a duty to take action to resolve it if they become aware of it, even if that duty was not initially intended.
acidentally commited arson
r v pittwood
omission of a contractual duty
failed to lower train barriers
r v pagett
defendant can be liable for a death caused by a foreseeable, reasonable act of a third party — it does not break the chain of causation.
used pregnant girlfriend as a shield from police bullets and she died - this was a forseeable outcome and did not break the chain of causation
r v white
established the ‘but for’ test of causation, according to which the defendant could not be convicted unless it could be shown that ‘but for’ his actions the victim would not have died
planned to poison mother but she had already died of a heart attack
r v kimsey
defendants act must be more than minimal but neednt be substantial
initated race but not the overtake - still more than minimal
r v jordan
palpably wrong treatment would break the chain of causation
death was not caused by the wound at all but that the medical treatment was inappropriate. The victim was intolerant to terramycin which was noticed and initially stopped before being continued the following day by another doctor.
r v smith
stab wound was an operating cause of the victim’s death; it did not matter that it was not the sole cause.
soldier dropped multiple times on way to treatment
r v cheshire
negligent medical treatment in this case was the immediate cause of the victim’s death but that did not absolve the accused unless the treatment was so independent the accused’s act to regard the contribution as insignificant.
travhctomy tube caused throat issues
r v roberts
vidtimd own act was proportioantte
jumped out of window of moving car as feared rape
r v williams
victims own act was disproportionate ehich broke the chain of causation - novus actus inteveniens
jumped out of window of moving car as feared wallet stolen
r v vickers
mens rea of murder is intention to kill(express malice) or cause GBH (imploed malice)
r v mohan
direct intent - a decision t bring about a consequence whether or not defendant desires that result
drove directly at a police officer
r v latimer
transferred malice Mens rea can be transferred from the intended target to the actual victim if the offence is of the same type.
tried to hit a man eith his belt but hurt an innocent bystander instead
