Fault (concepts)

Question 1

have you defined fault?

Answer 1

fault means the d should be able to contemplate the harm hat their actions may cause, and should therefore aim to avoid such actions, refers to mental state (MR)

Question 2

Have you discussed the different levels of fault in criminal law with case examples?

Answer 2

Murder- intention required is “an intention to kill or cause GBH” (R v Mohan)

recklessness which involves D has realised there is a risk of consequence occurring but has still decided to go through with it- Cunningham (assault)

GNM- beyond a matter of mere compensation as shown such a disregard for life and safety of others- (BATEMAN)

Question 3

Have you noted the difference between fault liability and strict liability?

Answer 3

fault liability requires some intention.

Question 4

Have you identified examples of strict liability in criminal law with a case and fault liability?

Answer 4

strict liability is found in regulatory offences- more concerned with protecting the public (regulations in food)
Not necessary to prove MR.
pharmaceutical society of GB v Storkwain

fault liability are examples such as GBH s18 or murder

Question 5

Have you discussed fault in civil law with examples?

Answer 5

in civil law, foreseeable harm is appropriate to all aspects of negligence.
negligence is judged on what a reasonable man would have foreseen
(Donaghue v Stevenson)
The D must owe a duty of care, which is below the standards of care appropriate to the duty.

Question 6

Have you identified examples of strict liability in tort?

Answer 6

a form of S.L to deal with dangerous activities and dangerous substances was found in the case of Rylands v Fletcher

consumer protection act 1987
S.2 (1)- any damage is caused by defect, anyone who it applies to will be liable for damage

Question 7

have you discussed defences available to reduce fault or eliminate fault for the defendant?

Answer 7

genuine mistake- eliminate fault entirely
WILLIAMS- (protection of others)

diminished responsibility set in homicide act 1957- reduces liability

Question 8

FOR MOCK: Factual causation and how it links to fault

Answer 8

have to prove D caused the injury
2 tests -
factual causation called the but for test
R v Pagett
if it wasn’t for D’s actions then girlfriend would not have died
to prove factual causation, the D has to be at fault, their actions have to have caused the consequences, and if it wasn’t there action, it would not have happened.

Question 9

Legal causation and how it links to fault?

Answer 9

legal causation
more than minimal- Kimsey

breaking the chain of causation

palpably wrong medical treatment- not Ds actions that have caused the death, causation broken, as the fault does not reside with the D anymore - (R v Jordan)

thin skull rule- BLAU- still at fault as the V would not have been put in a situation like that if it was not for D’s actions

V’s own acts- ROBERTS
the Vs actions were not proportionate to the threat, harm caused so far from what would have been caused by D that fault is not on D