Criminal - Seminar 4 - SW201 by Claire Turner

Link to Prezi

claire43 — 2023-10-17 13:04:15 UTC

R v Hughes

claire43 — 2023-10-17 13:04:20 UTC

R v Wallace

claire43 — 2023-10-17 13:04:24 UTC

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. Could Den be guilty of a homicide offence?

claire43 — 2023-10-17 13:04:29 UTC

2. D was driving without a license or insurance when a pedestrian stepped out in front of their car and was killed. The pedestrian was to blame for the accident and there was nothing D could have done to avoid it. D was charged under the Road Traffic Act, which provides that a person commits an offence if ‘being unlicensed, uninsured or disqualified, he causes the death of another person by driving a motor vehicle on the road’.

claire43 — 2023-10-17 13:04:36 UTC

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 — 2023-10-17 13:04:42 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 has established that the doctor had not fully examined Vic as the hospital was busy that evening.

claire43 — 2023-10-17 13:04:48 UTC

Factual - but for would she have died (White)

Legal - Causal link - operating and substantial cause of the death.

Break in the chain causation

Victim - Roberts - unforeseen 'daft'. 'terrified' - Kennedy No. 2 - 'free, deliberate and informed decision'.

Medical professional - break chain. - Cheshire relied on by prosecution - 'Treatment which falls short of the standard expected of the competent medical practitioner is unfortunately only too frequent in human experience for it to be considered abnormal in the sense of extraordinary' medical negligence is not extraordinary as the 'hospital was very busy that evening'

Defence - 'palpably wrong treatment' (Jordan). But in response the prosecution will state that the facts are distinguished as in Jordan the victim had virtually healed whereas in the instant case the injury is still operating.

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 officer 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 — 2023-10-17 13:04:54 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.

claire43 — 2023-10-17 13:04:59 UTC

Law Trove

claire43 — 2023-10-17 14:06:55 UTC

scenario 3

2024-10-15 14:34:58 UTC

Factual causation:

R v White: applying 'but for' test: victim would not have died BUT FOR the defendants actions (throwing the brick out the window). Therefore, factual causation satisfied.

Legal causation:

R v Smith: Defendants actions were the operative and substantial cause of the victims injuries/death.

R v Hayward: applying the 'eggshell skull' principle, which applies to physical conditions, Viv's bone condition do not break the chain of causation in this scenario.

Therefore, both factual and legal causation are satisfied and Dev is guilty.

Number 6

2024-10-15 14:35:31 UTC

White - factual

Legal - victim broken the chain of causation?

- Wallace [2018]: the victim’s conduct will only break the chain of causation if the victim made a truly voluntary/free choice.

- Wallace [2018]: similar circumstances to the case at hand. In that case it was ruled to not be a break in the chain of causation. This is because the only reason victim committed suicide was because of defendant’s conduct, so the victim’s suicide in both cases was not a truly voluntary choice.

o “there was nothing that could decently be described as voluntary either in the suffering or in the decision by Mr van Dongen to end his life, given the truly terrible situation he was in.”

- Therefore, the chain of causation was not broken, so Delilah is guilty of murder.

5

ashlesabehera — 2024-10-15 14:44:34 UTC

Issue – Is D guilty of murder?

Rule – Factual - R v White [1910] 2 KB 124

But for test - If D did not use V as a shield, would V still have died?

D’s intentions aren’t clear, however it’s reasonable to assume that he knew using her as a shield could likely cause V’s death.

legal - causal link (Smith - operating and substantial)

Break in chain by police officer. Prosecution - extraordinary negligence (Cheshire) - trying to save her life so not extraordinary. Defence - didn't need to shoot so it was 'palpably wrong'. Free and deliberate choice of the police officer.