62791
Descripción
Fichas por catriona.lilley, actualizado hace más de 1 año
|
Creado por catriona.lilley
hace más de 11 años
|
|
| Pregunta | Respuesta |
| R v Le Brun | continuing act causation (transaction principle) can apply even if the later acts were accidental and there was no premeditation |
| R v Smith | Operating and substantial cause of death test applied, even if another cause is also operating |
| Empress Cars | 3rd party actions are not an intervening act if they are 'normal' but do break the chain of causation if they are 'abnormal or exceptional' |
| R v Lowe | Ommissions may, but will not always, establish manslaughter |
| R v Hennigan | Confirms the 'sunstantial cause' test |
| R v Jordan | Medical negligence that is "palpably wrong" can be novus actus interveniens |
| R v Malcherek and Steel | Death is brain stem death, so Drs do not commit an intervening act when the turn off life support |
| R v Thabo Meli | Continuing Act principle can be used to establish coincidence of AR and MR |
| R v Simmonds | Medical evidence can establish causal link |
| Fagan | continuing act can establish AR and MR coincidence |
| Rungzabe Khan and Tahir Khan | An ommission can only amount to manslaughter if there is a duty of care |
| Evans | A supplier of drugs can be guilty of gross negligence manslaughter if they "fail to counteract" the situation they created |
| R v Church | Unlawful act manslaughter requires a risk of danger. Continuing acts can be the AR |
| R v Pittwood | Contractual duty can provide ommissions liability |
| R v Downes | Neglect (even if based on religious belief) may amount to gross negligence manslaughter |
| DPP v Santana Bermudez | An ommission which creates a dangerous situation can amount to assault |
| R v Dear | But for test applied. Even if a victim aggravates wounds that may not cause death, the chain is not broken |
| R v Mackie | Causation is maintained when death results from fleeing out of a well-founded fear of unlawful act (injury) |
| White | Established the 'but for' test of factual causation |
| R v Hayward | Death caused by the fear of unlawful violence can be manslaughter Think skull principle applied |
| R v Roberts | The actions of a victim are not novus actus interveniens if they could reasonably be foreseen as a consequence of D's actions. Not 'daft' |
| R v Gowans | The importance of the 'but for' and 'substantial and operating cause' tests in establishing causation upheld |
¿Quieres crear tus propias Fichas gratiscon GoConqr? Más información.