Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

CRIMINAL LAW - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Definition; An omission is a failure to act when there is a legal duty to do so, generally the law does not impose liability for failing to act unless there is legal duty of care that exists.
      - Categories of Duty
        
        Statutory duty
        
        Made by law eg; Road traffic act 1988
        
        Contractual duty
        
        Duty through a contract and they fail to act
        Case: R V Pittwood🚂
        
        Relationship
        
        Certain relationships impose a duty to act, particularly between parents and children or spouses.
        R V Gibbons and proctor 🐵
        
        Duty taken voluntarily
        
        If a person voluntarily assumes responsibility for another, they can be held liable for failing to act.
        R V stone and Dobinson
        
        Official position
        
        Certain roles impose a duty to act, such as police officers, doctors, or firefighters.
        R V Dytham👮‍♂️
        
        Dangerous situation
        
        If a person creates a dangerous situation, they have a duty to prevent harm.
        R V Miller, R V Santa Bermudez, R V Evans🚬👮‍♂️👨‍⚕️
    - - Factual causation
        
        "But For" test asks: Would the consequence have occurred "but for" the defendant’s conduct?
        
        cases
        
        R V White 🥛🍼
        
        The defendant poisoned his mother’s drink, but she died of a heart attack before drinking it.
        
        Held: The poisoning was not the cause of death → Not guilty of murder, but guilty of attempted murder.
        
        R V Pagget🤰
        
        The defendant used his pregnant girlfriend as a human shield in a police shootout, and she was killed.
        
        Held: But for the defendant’s actions, she would not have died → Factual causation proven.
      - Legal Causation
        
        the defendant’s act must be an operative and substantial cause of the result.
        
        R V Kimsey 🐵
        
        "More than minimal cause" – R v Kimsey (1996)
        
        A car chase led to a fatal crash. The defendant’s driving did not have to be the only cause, just a significant one.
        
        Held: More than a slight or trifling link → Legal causation proven
      - Intervening Acts ("Novus Actus Interveniens")
        
        Victim’s Own Actions
        
        If the victim’s own actions were a reasonably foreseeable response, causation remains intact.
        
        R v Roberts🚗 (1971)
        Held: Her reaction was reasonably foreseeable, so causation was NOT broken
        R v Williams (1992)🏍🏔
        Held: His actions were disproportionate and unforeseeable → Causation broken, defendant not liable.
        
        Thin Skull Rule💀
        
        Take your victim as you find them"
        
        R v Blaue (1975) 🕍🙏– Refusal of medical treatment
        
        Actions of a Third Party
        
        if the act is independent and unforeseeable, it may break the chain of causation.
        R v Jordan🥜 (1956) Held: The medical treatment was so "palpably wrong" that it broke causation → Defendant not liable.
        R v Smith🚌 (1959)Held: The stab wound was still the "operating and substantial cause"
        
        💡 Rule: Only if medical treatment is grossly negligent (like in Jordan) does it break the chain.
  - - - Direct Intention
        
        the defendant aims for, desires, or makes a conscious decision to bring about the prohibited consequence.
        
        R v Mohan (1975)🚗👮‍♀️🦶Held: Direct intention is a decision to bring
        about a particular consequence, regardless of desire.
      - Oblique Intention
        
        Definition: The defendant does not directly aim for the result but
        knows it is virtually certain to occur as a consequence of their actions.
        Test: Was the result a virtual certainty, and did the defendant realise this?
        
        Development of the Oblique Intention Test
        
        "Virtual Certainty" Test (R v Nedrick, 1986)📫⛽
        Held: A jury may infer intention if;
        The consequence was a virtual certainty, AND
        The defendant was aware of this.
        
        Early Approach – "Probability" (R v Maloney, 1985)
        The defendant shot and killed his stepfather during a drunken🔫 game.
        Held: Intention should NOT be confused with foresight of consequence. Only a high probability of harm is not enough for intention.
        
        Confirmed in R v Woollin👶
        Held:The jury must find intention if
        death or serious injury was a virtual certainty, AND
        The defendant realised this.
    - - subjective Recklessness (R v Cunningham, 1957)
        
        🔥💸⛽Cunningham Subjective Test:
        ✅ Did the defendant foresee the risk?
        ✅ Did they take the risk anyway?
        ➡️ If YES → Guilty of recklessness.
      - Caldwell Test (1982) – Objective Recklessness (Overruled)
        
        🔥🏨 Caldwell Objective Test:
        ❌ Did the defendant fail to consider an obvious risk?
        ❌ Would a reasonable person have noticed the risk?
        ➡️ If YES → Guilty of recklessness.
      - R v G and R (2003👦👦🗑 – Return to Cunningham Subjective Test
        
        💡 Modern Rule (R v G and R)
        :✅ Did the defendant foresee the risk?
        ✅ Did they take it anyway?
        ➡️ If YES → Guilty of recklessness.
    - - R v Adomako (1994) 💉👨‍⚕️– Gross Negligence Manslaughter conduct was so grossly negligent that it became criminal.
    - - R v Latimer (1886) – Malice Can Transfer🍻🤾‍♀️
      - R v Mitchell (1983) – Applies to Unintended Victims👵⚰
      - R v Pembliton (1874)Malice Cannot Transfer Between Different Crimes🥌🏠
    - - Sweet v Parsley (1969)👩‍🏫🍃 – Presumption of Mens Rea
        Callow v Tillstone (1900) 🐮– Even Innocence Does Not Matter
        Alphacell Ltd v Woodward (1972)🏥💊 – Protecting the Public
      - Gammon Test is used to determine whether an offence is one of strict liability.
        
        Gammon test
        
        1️⃣ Presumption of Mens Rea – Courts assume that a crime requires mens rea unless Parliament clearly states otherwise.
        
        2️⃣ Statutory Wording – If an Act is silent on mens rea, courts consider whether Parliament intended the offence to be strict liability.
        
        3️⃣ Public Welfare and Social Concern – If the offence relates to public safety (e.g., pollution, food safety), it is more likely to be strict liability.
        
        4️⃣ Encouraging Compliance – If making the offence strict liability improves enforcement and deters wrongdoing, courts may impose it.
        
        5️⃣ Severity of Punishment – The more serious the penalty, the less likely the courts will presume strict liability.