Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
criminal law (ACTS OR OMISSIONS (Fagan v metropolitan 1969} d drove over…
criminal law
ACTS OR OMISSIONS
Fagan v metropolitan 1969} d drove over police officers foot by accident and refused to move vehicle using aggressive language. COA found liability on the basis that it was a 'continuing act'. This case reaffirms both AR and MR have to be 'correspondence'
bland 1993} D was on life support, both family and doctors wanted to stop treatment. They drew a distinction between a positive act that killed, and an omission to act that allowed someone to die.
statutory duty}for example the road traffic act suggests there is a duty to stop, and to report an accident so failing to do so is part of the actus rues.
contractual duty}for example pittwood 1902 d was under contractual duty of employment to keep the gates to the crossing shut and to safeguard people using the crossing. His failure to act was a breach of contractual duty.
relationship of responsibility}the court held that stone v Dobinson had undertaken a duty of caring for their relative and they had been grossly negligent in their failure to fulfil their duty.
creating a dangerous situation}In miller d set fire to a house which caused damage. D was convicted of arson as he had a duty to take appropriate action.
cases
CHESHIRE}As long Ds action was a 'significant and operative 'cause of the death it need not to be the sole cause.
PAGETT}D took v as a human shield in a shoot out between the police. v had died but police did not break the chain as it was held to be a 'natural consequence'
-
ROBERTS}D making advances a v. v jumps out of car. As the victims act is foreseeable it didn't break the chain of causation
JORDAN}doctor gave v wrong treatment which caused an allergic reaction to his death. D broke the chain of causation under medical treatment/negligence.
-
-
-
-
THIN SKULL RULE
-
blaue 1975}v was stabbed and needed a blood transfusion but for v's religious beliefs was not undertaken resulting her death. d was found guilty as vulnerability of the victim does not break the chain of causation
THE CONDUCT
Conduct is the act , omission or state of affairs.
The act} Usually straightforward EG hitting someone. However in Leicester v Pearson he was acquitted as the act wasnt voluntary.
State of affairs} The condition/environment surrounding a person in relation to a criminal offence. EG being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle.
The omission} The failure to act, d is not guilty unless they have a duty to act in the first place. EG failing to look after your child
STATE OF AFFAIRS
Chief constable 1983}D was drunk police then arrested him for being found drunk on a highway. the state of 'being found' was enough. State of affair crime can occur when something which is normally legal may not be in certain circumstances.
-