General Principles Flashcards
Miller
Liability for Omissions
Defendant who creates a dangerous situation (squatter and cigarette)
Moloney
Guidelines that came under scrutiny
a) Did the jury think that death or really serious injury was a natural consequence of the defendant’s act?
b) If so, were they satisfied that the defendant had foreseen death or serious injury as a natural consequence of this act?
Nedrick
Changed Moloney guidelines
a) Did the jury consider that death or serious injury was virtually certain to occur as a consequence of the defendant’s actions?
b) If so, did the jury believe that the defendant foresaw death or serious injury as a virtual certainty?
Woolin
Leading authority on indirect intent
No direct evidence that purpose of d was to kill or inflict serious injury on victim it is necessary to direct the jury that they may only infer an intent to do serious injury if they are satisfied
a) that serious bodily harm was a VC consequence of d’s voluntary act
b) defendant appreciated this
Hill
Automatism- involuntary act that caused AR
Cunningham
Subjective test for recklessness three elements;
Did defendant foresee risk
Take the risk
The risk was unjustified
Proctor
Liability for Omissions
Special Relationship- let 7yo starve
Stone
Liability for Omissions
Special Relationship- someone who they had assumed care for died as a result of own ill health
RTA 1968
Liability for Omissions
Statutory duty- stopping at red light
Pittwood
Liability for Omissions
Railway keeper who’s lack of acting led to death on railway
McCrone
RTA 1988, s3
Standard of driving is objective- irrelevant that driver had just passed test.
Graham
Test for duress
- Defendant must reasonably believe that threat by serious injury or death to himself/ another and he himself must give way to threat
- Person of reasonable firmness sharing d’s characteristics would have given way to threats as defendant did (objective)
