CRIMINAL LAW

?
R V PAGGETT [1983]
Why R v Paggett is important
R v Paggett demonstrates the application of the ‘but for,’ test of causation. Where the defendant’s unlawful act places the victim in a position where they are killed by the actions of a third party who are justified in their
1 of 9
R V WHITE [1910]
R v White illustrates circumstances where the defendant’s conduct has been successfully overtaken by an unrelated cause of death, breaking the chain of causation. In the case, the defendant was found not guilty due to a break in the chain of causation.

F
2 of 9
R V DALLOWAY [1847]
R v Dalloway establishes that the prohibited consequences must have been caused by a culpable act. If the consequences are not caused by the defendant’s culpable act, then legal causation is not made out.

Facts
The defendant, Mr Dalloway, was driving a h
3 of 9
R V WILLIAMS [2010]
R v Williams highlights that the defendant’s culpable act does not need to cause the prohibited consequences for strict liability crimes, an exception to the normal causation rules.

Facts
The victim stepped out into a dual carriageway in front of Mr Will
4 of 9
R V BENGE [1886]
Why R v Benge is important
In R v Benge, the Court established it is not necessary for the defendant’s actions to be the only cause. However, the defendant`s act must play a more than minimal part in the consequence.

Facts
Mr Benge was the foreman of a g
5 of 9
R V KENNEDY [2007]
R v Kennedy (No. 2) illustrates a set of circumstances where the victim’s voluntarily and informed choice was held to be a novus actus interveniens, breaking the chain of causation.

Facts
The defendant supplied the victim with a heroin-filled syringe whi
6 of 9
R V BLAUE [1975]
R v Blaue is a case where the victim’s actions did not constitute a novus actus interveniens. Therefore, the defendant was guilty of the offence.

Facts
The victim had refused the defendant’s request to have sex with him, as a result of which the defendan
7 of 9
R V CHESHIRE [1991]
In R v Cheshire, the Court clarified when medical treatment constitutes a supervening act which breaks the chain of causation. The treatment provided must be so independent of the defendant’s act and so potent in causing the death that the jury regard the
8 of 9
R V LATIMER [1886]
R v Latimer shows that a defendant can be convicted of an offence where they intend to injure person A but accidentally harm the victim. This is done through the doctrine of transferred malice.

Facts
Latimer became involved in a fight with person A at a
9 of 9

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

R V WHITE [1910]

Back

R v White illustrates circumstances where the defendant’s conduct has been successfully overtaken by an unrelated cause of death, breaking the chain of causation. In the case, the defendant was found not guilty due to a break in the chain of causation.

F

Card 3

Front

R V DALLOWAY [1847]

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

R V WILLIAMS [2010]

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

R V BENGE [1886]

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all . resources »