Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Fatal offences - Coggle Diagram

- - - - The defendant killed
        
        Voluntary positive act or omission
      - The killing was unlawful - no defence
      - The killing was of a reasonable creature in being (human being)
      - The killing took place under the the King’s Peace
        
        R v Clegg
  - - - Factual causation-'but for' test
        
        R v White
      - Legal causation
        
        Is the defendant's action more than a minimal cause of the death ‘de minimis rule’ - R v Kimsey.
        
        Were the actions of the D the operating (main) cause of the death - R v Smith
      - Novus Actus Interveniens (a new operating cause) - Intervening Acts
        
        Medical treatment/intervention
        
        R v Jordon
        
        Victim’s own actions
        
        R v Roberts
      - Thin skull rule-(underlying health condition) R v Blaue
  - - - Intent
        
        Direct intent-Mohan
        
        Indirect intent-Woolin
        
        Transferred malice-Latimer
- - - - 1.A positive act
        
        Act must not be by omission
      - 2.An unlawful act
        
        Must be a crime e.g Assault,GBH-R v Lamb
      - 3.Unlawful act should be dangerous
        
        Test to determine whether the act of the D is dangerous is objective-reasonable person must recognise that the act of the D would cause the other person ‘some harm’-R v Church
        
        Property-R v Goodfellow
        
        Fear and apprehension-R v Dawson
      - 4.The positive act be done with the necessary mens rea
        
        DPP v Newbury(paving slab off bridge)
      - 5.Chain of causation be intact and death ensue
        
        Factual+Legal causation
        
        Defendants acts must be more than a minimal cause of the harm-Kimsey
        
        Explain that the chain of causation can be broken by an intervening act - R v Cato, R v Kennedy
  - - - Was there a duty of care?
        
        Misra & Srivastava
      - Was the duty of care breached?
        
        A breach of duty occurs when a person's conduct fails to meet an applicable standard of care. This is an objective standard - the ‘reasonable person'-Blyth v Birmingham
      - Was the breach the cause of death?
        
        Causation in fact – defendant ‘but for’ their actions and more than a minimal contribution to death of victim – Kimsey
        Causation in law – defendant’s act to be operative and substantial cause of harm – Smith Impact of poor medical treatment – Cheshire, Jordan, victims own action - Roberts, Williams, Dear
      - Was the negligence so gross?
        
        Was the negligence so bad (gross)in all the circumstances as to amount to a criminal act or omission in the eyes of the jury–R v Bateman
- - - - S.52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009
        
        1.an abnormality of mental functioning
        
        R v Bryne
        
        2.Which arose from a recognised medical condition
        
        Wood(alcohol)
        
        3.Substantially impaired the D’s ability to
        
        Lloyd
        
        a.understand the nature of their conduct or
        
        b.form a rational judgement or
        
        c.exercise self-control
        
        The abnormality must provide an explanation for defendant’s acts and omissions ie there must be causal link but need not be the only one.
    - - S.54 coroners and justice act 2009
        
        The defendant must lose control
        
        54(1)(b) states that it does not matter whether or not the loss of control was sudden
        
        R v Jewell
        
        Because of a qualifying trigger
        
        S55 CJA states 2 qualifying triggers
        
        The fear trigger - s55(3) R v Ward
        The anger trigger - s55(4) R v Bowyer
        
        A person of their sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance, might have reacted in the same way
        
        s.54(1)(c) Zebedee