STRUCTURE
Intro
This question will discuss XYZ. I will discuss XYZ’s liability for XYZ (repeat). I will
discuss this in chronological order to what appears in the scenario.
Person
- Identify issue then say what can be liable for
Actus Reus – get to issues quick
Conduct
Circumstance
Result
Mens Rea
Intent
Did they know they were a person (or simply no mens rea) if not construct liability!
Defences
Partial defences if murder
Conclusion
Overall, on the facts it is likely XYZ is liable for XYZ. XYZ would be acquitted based on
the defence of XYZ.
, ACTUS REUS
Conduct
- Movement or lack of
- Conduct via omission
1. Offence capable of commission by omission homicide, OAP, Property
2. Duty to act legally recognised
a. Duty based on definition road traffic act, failure to report accident
Dytham [1979]
b. Duty to act on contract Pittwood
c. Familial relationship Parent child Gibbins and Proctor, Married
couple Hood didn’t help wife broken bones
d. Assumption of care Nicholls, take care of someone voluntarily,
Instan implicit
e. Duty to act on endangerment Miller cigarette, Evans didn’t aid
sister and duty arose from contribution, Matthews and Alleyne
pushed into river didn’t help
3. Breach of that duty Stone and Dobinson reasonable person standard,
Did D do what was reasonable based on standard of competent person
Circumstance
- Can have circumstances such as V must be 18 or must be a female
Result
- Certain consequences of the conduct
a. Natural events
- Basic rules causation is attributed to the defendant unless the event was not
reasonably foreseeable
- Hart D assaulted V leaving her unconscious below high water mark, V
drowned, D caused death as D would not have killed V had she not been left
lying there
-
Factual cause
- BUT FOR R v White “But for X, Y would not have”
- Benge doesn’t have to be sole cause
Legal cause
- Substantial R v Kimsey X’s conduct was more than de minimis
- Blameworthy R v Hughes X’s conduct is blameworthy
- Operating cause R v Smith X’s conduct was a substantial cause at the time
(NOVUS ACTUS?)
Legal causation - Novus Actus
Intervention from defendant
- D stabs someone and they don’t die but when in hospital gives COVID and they
die of COVID don’t group Le Brun
Intervention from natural events
, - D attacks V and leaves them for them to be hit by falling tree only liable for
what was caused not death
Intervention from victim
1. Foreseeability was V’s reaction foreseeable Roberts courts rarely say V’s
action daft. Wont be legal cause if unforeseeable
2. Voluntariness V act freely, voluntarily and informed. Kennedy (No.2) if
administer own drugs then chain broke but if you administer not Cato, Field
misled into mixing drugs and alcohol
3. Vulnerability egg shell skull, take them as you find them. Blaue didn’t give
blood to Jehovah’s guilty
- Cheshire shot and died after not need to be sole or main cause
- R g Wallace causation found as wishes weren’t independent of D’s conduct
Intervention from third party
- Foreseeability was third party’s actions foreseeable
- Voluntary R v Pagett
- Jordan doctor ended up killing not D
- Smith D still liable as their shooting caused death related
- Chesire D shot V and being treated but doctor crushed windpipe still liable
MENS REA
Intention
Direct intention
- A person intends to cause the result if they act with purpose of doing so
- D acts to achieve results, synonymous with desires, no planning and must
coincide with AR DUFF(Moloney didn’t have)
Oblique intention
Woolin test
- The circumstance is a virtual certainty
- D foresees it as a virtual certainty
- The jury chooses to find intention
Recklessness
Cunningham
1. D’s awareness of risk
- D must foresee a risk of the relevant circumstance or relevant
- Stephenson subjective must be D who foresees risk
- Degree of risk irrelevant Brady
- How carefully D consider risk irrelevant parker angry but still know risk
2. D’s awareness if any degree of risk
- D aware risk will occur G
3. Risk D believes is present is unjustified or unreasonable one under circumstance
- Was the risk one a reasonable person would take
Negligence
Key questions
- Did D act unreasonably?
- Did D act as a reasonable person would?
- Did D act below the standards a reasonable person would?
Intro
This question will discuss XYZ. I will discuss XYZ’s liability for XYZ (repeat). I will
discuss this in chronological order to what appears in the scenario.
Person
- Identify issue then say what can be liable for
Actus Reus – get to issues quick
Conduct
Circumstance
Result
Mens Rea
Intent
Did they know they were a person (or simply no mens rea) if not construct liability!
Defences
Partial defences if murder
Conclusion
Overall, on the facts it is likely XYZ is liable for XYZ. XYZ would be acquitted based on
the defence of XYZ.
, ACTUS REUS
Conduct
- Movement or lack of
- Conduct via omission
1. Offence capable of commission by omission homicide, OAP, Property
2. Duty to act legally recognised
a. Duty based on definition road traffic act, failure to report accident
Dytham [1979]
b. Duty to act on contract Pittwood
c. Familial relationship Parent child Gibbins and Proctor, Married
couple Hood didn’t help wife broken bones
d. Assumption of care Nicholls, take care of someone voluntarily,
Instan implicit
e. Duty to act on endangerment Miller cigarette, Evans didn’t aid
sister and duty arose from contribution, Matthews and Alleyne
pushed into river didn’t help
3. Breach of that duty Stone and Dobinson reasonable person standard,
Did D do what was reasonable based on standard of competent person
Circumstance
- Can have circumstances such as V must be 18 or must be a female
Result
- Certain consequences of the conduct
a. Natural events
- Basic rules causation is attributed to the defendant unless the event was not
reasonably foreseeable
- Hart D assaulted V leaving her unconscious below high water mark, V
drowned, D caused death as D would not have killed V had she not been left
lying there
-
Factual cause
- BUT FOR R v White “But for X, Y would not have”
- Benge doesn’t have to be sole cause
Legal cause
- Substantial R v Kimsey X’s conduct was more than de minimis
- Blameworthy R v Hughes X’s conduct is blameworthy
- Operating cause R v Smith X’s conduct was a substantial cause at the time
(NOVUS ACTUS?)
Legal causation - Novus Actus
Intervention from defendant
- D stabs someone and they don’t die but when in hospital gives COVID and they
die of COVID don’t group Le Brun
Intervention from natural events
, - D attacks V and leaves them for them to be hit by falling tree only liable for
what was caused not death
Intervention from victim
1. Foreseeability was V’s reaction foreseeable Roberts courts rarely say V’s
action daft. Wont be legal cause if unforeseeable
2. Voluntariness V act freely, voluntarily and informed. Kennedy (No.2) if
administer own drugs then chain broke but if you administer not Cato, Field
misled into mixing drugs and alcohol
3. Vulnerability egg shell skull, take them as you find them. Blaue didn’t give
blood to Jehovah’s guilty
- Cheshire shot and died after not need to be sole or main cause
- R g Wallace causation found as wishes weren’t independent of D’s conduct
Intervention from third party
- Foreseeability was third party’s actions foreseeable
- Voluntary R v Pagett
- Jordan doctor ended up killing not D
- Smith D still liable as their shooting caused death related
- Chesire D shot V and being treated but doctor crushed windpipe still liable
MENS REA
Intention
Direct intention
- A person intends to cause the result if they act with purpose of doing so
- D acts to achieve results, synonymous with desires, no planning and must
coincide with AR DUFF(Moloney didn’t have)
Oblique intention
Woolin test
- The circumstance is a virtual certainty
- D foresees it as a virtual certainty
- The jury chooses to find intention
Recklessness
Cunningham
1. D’s awareness of risk
- D must foresee a risk of the relevant circumstance or relevant
- Stephenson subjective must be D who foresees risk
- Degree of risk irrelevant Brady
- How carefully D consider risk irrelevant parker angry but still know risk
2. D’s awareness if any degree of risk
- D aware risk will occur G
3. Risk D believes is present is unjustified or unreasonable one under circumstance
- Was the risk one a reasonable person would take
Negligence
Key questions
- Did D act unreasonably?
- Did D act as a reasonable person would?
- Did D act below the standards a reasonable person would?
