Criminal Law - Seminar4 by Claire Turner

1. Den set out to kill Vin by tampering with the brakes of Vin's motorbike. While riding the bike, Vin was killed in a collision with a car which pulled out from a junction. Misjudging the speed at which Vin was approaching, the car pulled straight onto the road and into his path, giving him no time to brake. There is evidence that the brakes would have failed if full pressure had been applied to the brake lever but that Vin had not attempted to do so.

claire43 — 2022-10-18 13:32:22 UTC

Not guilty.

Factual - but for (White) - But for him tampering with the brakes the victim would have died anyway.

Legal - deminimis (R v Pagett). Smith - operating and substantial cause of the death - no.

Attempted murder intention to kill or cause GBH - see attempts seminar.

3. Dev throws a brick out of his upstairs bedroom window as he has lost his temper with the builders who have been making a mess whilst renovating his house. The brick hits one of the builders, Viv, and kills him instantly. Unbeknownst to Dev, Viv had a bone condition which made his bones vulnerable to breakage and died from a fractured skull from being hit on the head.

claire43 — 2022-10-18 13:32:42 UTC

4. Vic is in an abusive relationship with Dominic. One night, Dominic comes into their bedroom and threatens Vic with violence. She is terrified and jumps out of the window and breaks her arm. She is taken to hospital where the doctor fails to see the complexity of the break. Her arm is not set properly. It fails to heal and Vic dies from the resulting infection. Evidence established that the doctor had not fully examined Vic as the hospital was busy that evening.

claire43 — 2022-10-18 13:32:49 UTC

Factual causation established? White. But for D threat, Vic would not have jumped and broken her arm.

Legal causation - intervening act doctors medical negligence. Wasn't an issue as Dominic was liable, ~~not Doctor.~~

Legal causation - causal link - Smith - operating and substantial cause of her death? More that an slight or trifling link (Kimsey; Pagett)

Break chain - Medical negligence - Prosecution -Cheshire - medical so independent and so potent to be considered extraordinary. Medical negligence is too frequent in human experience to be considered extraordinary.

Smith - overwhelming the original wound part of history - hasn't been satisfied as the Dr is working on the injury

Defence - Joran - treatment palpably wrong breaks the chain. Distinguish - Jordan victim had virtually healed whereas in instant case the wound is still operating.

Victim - break chain? Prosecution - foreseeable result. Roberts - was a reasonable response to someone who carried out domestic violence. The decision was not 'free deliberate and informed (Kennedy No. 2) because of the extreme circumstances the D had placed her so it wasn't voluntary (Wallace)

5. D has taken V hostage. He has a gun which he has fired at armed police who have surrounded his house. D tries to escape, using V as a shield. it is dark outside and visibility is poor. As D leaves an armed police officers fires at him but the bullet strikes V. She dies. D is charged with murder but claims the police killed V - is he correct?

claire43 — 2022-10-18 13:32:55 UTC

6. Delilah and Valentine were young models who shared a flat. Delilah was not being booked for work and was very jealous of the amount of work Valentine was getting. After a particularly disappointing casting, Delilah waited for Valentine to return to the flat and then threw a bottle of cleaning bleach over her face. Valentine’s injuries were catastrophic. She was left severely disfigured and suffering with devastating physical and psychological impacts. Six months after the attack, she committed suicide. The CPS is now considering charging Delilah in connection with the death of Valentine. Advise them.

claire43 — 2022-10-18 13:34:12 UTC

Link to Prezi

claire43 — 2022-10-18 15:05:24 UTC

R v Wallace

claire43 — 2022-10-19 08:42:35 UTC

R v Hughes

claire43 — 2025-10-15 11:02:25 UTC

question 3

dimahajali1 — 2025-10-15 11:33:36 UTC

Factual (White) - but for him throwing the brick Viv would not suffered the injury.

Legal causation -

Causal link first - Smith (operating and substantial cause) Pagett/ Kimsey - de minimis.

yes dev would be found liable for viv's injuries even though his condition made him unusually vulnerable. following the principle in r v Blaue 1975, the thin skull rule, you take your victim as you found them. the defendant is liable for all of the consequences. the bone condition will not break the chain of causation.