Criminal Law cases

• 1. Pitwood, Gibbins and proctor, stone and dobinson, Dytham, are all Omissions
• An omission is a failure to act
• Factual causation is satisfied by the ‘but for test’
• Pagett used his girlfriend as a human shield and was the factual causation of her death
• White’s mother died while being poisoned but the poison did not kill her so the but for test is Not satisfied
• Hughes established the “but for“ test is not enough for D to be held responsible for their actions
• Smith established poor hospital treatment does not break the chain of causation
• Legal causation can be broken through an intervening act ( novus actus intervinus ) that is not reasonably foreseeable
• A Victims own act will not break the chain in causation as seen in roberts
• In Corbett D was convicted of manslaughter even though he did not directly kill V
• self-neglect or suicide will not break the chain of causation as seen in wallace
• medical negligence was not enough to break the chain of causeation in Cheshire as it was not “in itself so potent in causing death“
• In Jordan medical negligence did break the chain of causation as the treatment was “palpably wrong“
• The thin skull rule established that D Must take V as they find them
• The Thin Skull Rule was present In blaue as her hidden weakness was her refusal of blood transfusion
• Mens Rea means guilty mind
• Direct intent was defined in Mohan
• S8 Criminal Justice Act 1967 created a subjective test which makes it clear that this is the only part of evidence where intention can be inferred
• Indirect intent was defined in Woollin
• Moloney shot and killed his stepdad but was only given manslaughter as he did not foresee the consequences
• in Matthews and Alleyne they dropped someone who couldn’t swim into a river and we’re found guilty as they could for see the consequences
• Subjective recklessness was defined in Cunningham
• In R v G&R they were not found guilty of criminal damages as they did not foresee the consequence of the bin setting fire
• Negligence was defined in Adomako
• In Storkwain a pharmacist gave drugs without a Perscription but the pharmacy was found liable
• Tranfered malice is when something is directed at one person and effects another
• In Latimer he struck his belt at a man and hit a woman instead and was found liable for her injuries
• In Mitchell D tried to jump the queue and pushed a man this then hurt and eventually killed a woman, D was found liable
• In transferred malice a defendant can be found guilty even if he didn’t commit the crime as shown in Gnango
• D may not be guilt if the Mens Rea for the crime intended is different to the crime committed as shown in Pembliton ( throwing rocks)
• In Thabo Meli D thought he killed a man but hadnt but the man eventually died of exposure D was still found guilty even if he did not directly kill as he had the Mens Rea
• In Fagan v MPC D’s refusal to move his car on an officers foot even if originally on accident was a continuing act and was therefore found guilty
• Assault is defined as: an intentional or reckless act which causes a person to apprehend the infliction of immediate unlawful force
• Words can negate assault as shown in Tuberville v Savage
• Nelson established “A defendant did something of a physical king which caused someone else to apprehend that they were about to be struck
• In Lamb D fired a gun at V both thought the gun was unloaded so there was no fear therefore no assault
• In logdon V thought D’s fake gun was real so it was assault as fear was present even if there was no threat
• Constanza established sending stalking letters in assault
• Ireland/burstow established silent phone calls can be assault
• Smith v CSWPS established no attack has to be imminent for assault to be present