4229371
Description
Mind Map by Catherine Fairweather, updated more than 1 year ago
|
|
Created by Catherine Fairweather
almost 9 years ago
|
|
Causation
- Actus Reus
- Guilty Act
- Mens Rea and Actus Reus must coincide
- Fagan 1968 -
continuing act
- Thabo Meli 1954 -
transaction theory
- Fagan 1968 -
continuing act
- Mens Rea and Actus Reus must coincide
- 4 categories of actus mens
- Result Crimes (there must be a result)
- Conduct Crimes (does not need to be a result)
- State of affairs (state of being)
- Omission (failure to do a duty)
- Result Crimes (there must be a result)
- Must be voluntary (Bratty 1963)
- Guilty Act
- Mens Rea
- Guilty Mind
- Intention
- Negligence
- Reckless
- Guilty Mind
- Transferred Malice
- Ability to transfer malice from one
individual to another individual
- Malice must be the same offence
- Latimer 1886 - D aimed belt blow at a
man because he attacked D. Blow actually
struck a woman across the face
- Latimer 1886 - D aimed belt blow at a
man because he attacked D. Blow actually
struck a woman across the face
- Malice is non-transferrable in a different
offence to which was intended
- Pembliton 1876 - D threw a stone,
intending to hit people, but stone broke
a window
- Pembliton 1876 - D threw a stone,
intending to hit people, but stone broke
a window
- Malice must be the same offence
- Ability to transfer malice from one
individual to another individual
- Factual Causation
- "But for" test
- White !910
- But for the actions of D, would V
have died or suffered the result?
- White !910
- "But for" test
- Legal Causation
- This is a question for the Jury
- "De Minimus" rule
- Kimsey 1996
- Was D's contribution more than minimal?
- Kimsey 1996
- This is a question for the Jury
- Novius Actus Intervenienes
- Must be unforeseeable and the
overwhelming cause of result
- 3.. Naturally Occuring Events
- 1. Third Party
- Smith 1959 - ruling - "Chain of
causation will not be broken whilst
original injury is still in operation"
- Cheshire 1991 - ruling - "Intervening medical
treatment must be so independent and so
potential in causing result to exclude D's
responsiblity for the act"
- Smith 1959 - ruling - "Chain of
causation will not be broken whilst
original injury is still in operation"
- 2. Victim's Own Actions
- Roberts 1971 - "Daftness Test" - Was the actions of V so daft
that no reasonable man could be expected to foresee it?
- Williams 1992 - ruling - "to make D
guilty, V's actions had to be foreseeable
and in proportion to the act"
- Roberts 1971 - "Daftness Test" - Was the actions of V so daft
that no reasonable man could be expected to foresee it?
- Must be unforeseeable and the
overwhelming cause of result
- Thin Skull Rule
- D must take V as he finds him. it means that if V has
something such as a physical or mental illness or particular
belief which makes the injury worse, D will be liable for more
serious injury
- Blaue 1975 - V was stabbed
by D and needed a blood
transfusion. But refused as
was a Jehavoh's Witness.
She later died and D was
charged with murder
- Blaue 1975 - V was stabbed
by D and needed a blood
transfusion. But refused as
was a Jehavoh's Witness.
She later died and D was
charged with murder
- D must take V as he finds him. it means that if V has
something such as a physical or mental illness or particular
belief which makes the injury worse, D will be liable for more
serious injury
Want to create your own Mind Maps for free with GoConqr? Learn more.