Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
first test; paper 1 - Coggle Diagram
first test; paper 1
conduct and consequence
conduct
is basically the action, the thing . when somebody commit theft the conduct is stealing or when someone is caught speeding the conduct is fast driving.
-
conduct and consequence
it's when there is a conduct(action, the thing , the doing) and because of that action there is a consequence. like spreading and somebody gets hit and dies. the conduct is the spreading , the consequence is that someone died
-
state of affairs
state of affairs crimes mean that the crime committed by D doesn't need to have a back story or meaning/reasoning behind it. eg carrying drugs. the police doesn't need to know how the drugs got there or anything like that.
-
mens rea
act the act is the doing part of the crime . The act is the action that gets D into trouble in the first place .
omissions ; is the failure to do something. the failure to pay your taxes for example will be the omssion to the crime.
the general rule on omissions ; the general rule is that your are not liable/act if you see a crime happening. So if you see someone getting mugged on the street , you won't be committing a crime if you don't do something about it like calling the police. there is no general liability for omissions
-
state of affairs state of affairs means basically wrong place wrong time. your explanation is irrelevant , the sheer fact of you having something or being part of something illegal is enough. for example , drug possession. The police don't care how you got the drugs , the fact that you have them is enough.
causation
factual causation
factual causation is when D's action is what caused the actual harm to the victim. we consider 'but for' , but for D's action would V had been harmed . (if not , D is not guilty of the harm V faced).
-
-
legal causation
is when we consider more than minimal. was d's involvement more then minimal in the crime. we see if D's involvement had a significant contribution to V's harm.
if V faces harmed because D put into motion a chain of events ,prosecution will need to prove that.
-
-
-
chain of causation
by a third party
if the act of the third party is entirely independent from D's original act then the chain of causation is broken. So D is not held accountable for what happens to V.
And if third parties act is potent in the harm, they have broken the chain of causation and now the third party is the case of harm not D's original act
-
-
by the victim
the act of V is the cause for the brake in the chain of causation if ...V's act is almost entirely independent from D's original act and 2 , entirely potent in causing the harm. The chain can be broken if V's act was not foreseeable by the defendant or if V's act was unreasonable under the circumstance.
-
R V KENNEDY V asked D for some heroin , D gave him the heroin an V inject himself. He died from the overdose. D was not the reason for V's death because V voluntarily injetd the heroin , he knew what he was doing so he is potent in the harm , not D.
-
-