The flashcards below were created by user
toricazaly
on FreezingBlue Flashcards.
-
Unlawful act Manslaughter
- There must be an unlawful act
- - civil wrong is insufficient - Franklin 1883
- Omission is insufficient - Lowe 1973
- Not liable if V didnt fear violence-
- This unlawful act must be dangerous - Church
- Doesn't need to be against a person - Goodfellow
- D's act can endanger someone other than original person suffering harm - Mitchell
- Not liable if D or reasonable person can not be aware of condition - Dawson 1985
- Not liable if other factors contirbuted - Carey 2006
- Causing the death - causation
- Self injection breaks chain - Kennedy 2007
- But self injection can be liable if only occured because of D - Rogers 2003
- They have the MR for the unlawful act (not the killing)
-
Grossly Negligent Manslaughter
- Duty of care - defined in donoghue V stevenson 1932
- There must be a breach in the duty - Litchfield
- Duty owed even through criminal enterprise - Waker
- Must be proof of causation
-
Duress of Threats
- Type of threat - death/PI - Valderrama Vega
- Toward who? - anyone they feel responsible for - Wright
- Specific Threat - Cole
- Timing of threat - immenent? Immediate?
- Subjective test - Did the D reasonably believe that the threat of death was real or serious person injury was real? - Mistaken belief is ok - Caines
- Objective - would a sober person of reasonable firmness sharing D's characteristics - Bowen says age, gender, pregnacy, recognised medical condition and serious physical disability NOT IQ)
- Exclusion - Not available to Murder - Howe
- Not available to attempted Murder - Gotts
- Did D knowingly associate with known criminals - Hasan.
-
Automatism
- 1)There must be total loss of control or act was involuntary - AG ref (No2 of 1992)
- 2) External factor - Quick
- - Role of stress is troubling to courts - T
- - Sleep walking is no longer - Burgess
- - Sexsomnia is now allowed for automatism - Johnson 2007.
- 3) The Automatism state must not be self-induced
- - Exception occurs when D doesn't know his act could lead to an automatic state and he has not been reckless - Hardie
-
Insanity
- 1) A defect of reason
- - Requires an impairment of reasoning
- - Must be more than mere absent mindedness or confusion - Clarke.
- 2) a disease of the mind
- - legal term covering physical and mental conditions - Kempt
- - Must be an internal factor and existing at the time the D acted - Hennessy
- - Can be sleepwalking- Burgess
- 3) Not knowing the nature or quality of the act that legally wrong
- - No defence if D knows that what they are doing is legally wrong, even if they have a mental illness - Windle 1952
- - May be due to a state of unconsiousness or impaired consciousness
-
Causation
- Factual causation - 'But for' - sine que non - White
- Legal causation - de minimus - more than trivial - Kimsey
- Objective test - Smith and Cheshire
- Breaks in the chain
- Acting in a foreseeable way doesnt break chain -Roberts
- Unforeseable way may break chain - Williams
- Must take V as you found them - Blaue and Mamont Klaulang
- Self neglect doesnt break chain even if extreme - Holland 1841
- Deliberate voluntary act of V can break chain - Kennedy
- Third party actions usually dont break chain - Pagett
- Medical treatment rarely breaks chain - Jordan 1966
- Turning off the life support machine not break chain - Malcherek
|
|