Occasioning:
- Causation Q. Factual/Legal cause of the AB
- Discuss Assault/Battery that CAUSED ABH.
MR:
- Intent/Subj. Recklessness as to the Assault or Battery.
-
No need for it to be intent/recklessness as to the ABH (Savage)
S.20 OAPA – Unlawful and malicious wounding or inflicting GBH with or without a weapon.
AR: Unlawful wounding or inflicting GBH
- Unlawful if not in self defence or consent
-
‘Inflict’ for S.20 and ‘Cause’ for S.18 synonymous → Inflicting is a causation Q (Burstow)
-
Wound – Break both layers of skin (Eisenhower)
-
GBH: Really serious harm (Smith) – Serious Harm (Saunders)
That is what the ordinary man in the street deems serious. (Physical: Smith. Psychological: Chan-Fook/Burstow/Ireland). Jury can take into account age/health/cumulative injuries of V as to seriousness. (Bollom)
-
Transmission of Disease (Dica/Konzani)
Both factual/legal cause of wound/GBH.
MR: - Malicious means intent or subj. recklessness AS TO SOME HARM (Mowatt). There is no need to foresee serious injury. Confirmed in Savage; Parmenter; DPP v A.
S.18 OAPA – Unlawful and Malicious wounding of causing GBH WITH INTENT
AR Same as S.20. AR: Unlawful wounding or inflicting GBH
- Unlawful if not in self defence or consent
-
‘Inflict’ for S.20 and ‘Cause’ for S.18 synonymous → Inflicting is a causation Q (Burstow)
-
Wound – Break both layers of skin (Eisenhower)
-
GBH: Really serious harm (Smith) – Serious Harm (Saunders)
That is what the ordinary man in the street deems serious. (Physical: Smith. Psychological: Chan-Fook/Burstow/Ireland). Jury can take into account age/health/cumulative injuries of V as to seriousness. (Bollom)
-
Transmission of Disease (Dica/Konzani)
Both factual/legal cause of wound/GBH.
MR: Intent, Aim or Purpose. (Mohan) to cause GBH. This requires proof D intended serious injury.
Intent can be direct or oblique.
Oblique: Consequence was a virtually certainty to occur and D appreciated this fact (Nedrick;Woolin)
-
Matthews and Alleyne said that OI was strong evidence from which the jury may find intent.
If Jury cannot find intent they may return a verdict of MS (Coutts)
Murder – Common Law Offence, Mandatory Life Sentence
Coke: Unlawful killing of another human being under the queen’s peace with malice aforethought
Vol. Act or Omission:
-
Dangerous Situation (Miller)
-
Contractual Duty (Pittwood)
-
Assumption of Responsibility (Stone + Dobson)
-
Special Relationship (Gibbins + Proctor)
-
Public Figure (Dytham)
Causation: 1) Factual ‘But For’ test (White;Paggett;Dalloway;Merchant + Muntz)
2) Legal –
De Minimus: - More than a minimal cause (Kimsey) – Only a significant contribution by D is sufficient for liability (Paggett) and death/serious injury must be reasonably foreseeable (Chesire)
Intervening Acts: - Acts of God
- Third Party (Must overwhelm original injuries)
-
Jordan: “Palpably Wrong” – Breaks Chain
-
Smith/Chesire: “Thoroughly Bad” – Does not break chain
-
Malcherick and Steel – Discontinuing treatment does not break chain
-
Acts of V – “If V does something so daft + unexpected that it is not reasonably foreseeable it will break the chain of causation” (Roberts) - Proportionate to crime (Williams and Davis).
-
Self Neglect: Will not break chain (Holland/Dear/Dhaliwal)
Thin Skill Rule – (Blaue)
MR: Intent to Kill or cause GBH
Oblique: Jury not entitled to find necessary intention unless they feel sure death or serious injury was a virtual certainty and D appreciated that – Nedrick; Woollin.
-
Matthews + Alleyne – Rule of evidence from which intention can be found
-
Coutts – If intent can’t be found, MS can be returned
Transferred Malice - Latimer
-
Not to property – Pembleton
Coincidence of AR + MR – (Fagan/Thabo Meli/Le Brun) Continuing Act.
UAM
Unlawful Act: - Criminal Offence, not civil (Franklin)
-
Act, not Omission (Lowe)
-
Act must be unlawful itself, not something that becomes unlawful (Andrews)
-
Elements of base crime must be proved in full (Lamb; Arobieke; Jennings)
-
Can be any criminal offence (Mitchell; Goodfellow)
Prosecution must identify unlawful act (Jennings)
Dangerous (Objective – Church Test)
- Obvious risk to reasonable person that some harm would result from D’s actions.
-
Confirmed in Newbury + Jones, Test added in Dawson.
- Sober + Reasonable man would have same knowledge as D at scene of incident, slight exception to thin skill rule.
-
Cases of Dangerousness: Watson/Ball/AG Ref No. 3 of 1994/Woolley v Campbell/Carey
Causation: Usual Rules (But For – Le Brun/Corion-Augustine. Deminimus = Shohid)
DRUGS CASES FOR CAUSATION: - Cato – Injected V (Guilty)
-
Dalby – Self administration breaks chain of causation
-
Dias – Confirmed above
-
Rogers – Injected with help (Guilty)
-
Andrews –Injected legal drug (Guilty) – Strict liability
MR: Intent/Recklessness for the base crime – (Lamb/Arobieke)
- Foresight that D’s act may cause death or injury NOT required
-
Can be committed by strict liability (Andrews)
Gross Negligence Manslaughter - Act or Omission. Foundations in ordinary neg. (Donoghue v Stevenson)
-
Current test established in Adomako (ordinary rules of negligence)
Elements of GNM: - Duty of care (3 Stage Test/Criminal Omissions)
- Breach of care
- Obvious Risk of death (to the reasonable man) causing death (causation)
- Gross Negligence & MR (Jury Q – So serious it warrants criminal punishment)
Duty: - Civil Three Stage Test (Foreseeable/Proximity/Fair) – Corparo v Dickman
-
Criminal Omissions: PIttwood/Stone + Dobson
-
Litchfield (Conractual; Dangerous Situation)
-
Kite & OLL (Dangerous Situation)
-
Edwards (Special Relationship)
-
Wacker (Assumption of Duty)
Breach of Duty: Standard to reasonable man or reasonable professional doing that job.
Obvious Risk of Death: (Objective) There must be an obvious risk of death in activity, one obvious to the reasonable man (Sing/Misra/Yaqoob) This takes into account what pre-cautions were taken.
Causes Death: There must be risk of death, ordinary rules of causation.
Gross Negligence: Bateman/Adomanko/Andrews
Bateman: “Negligence of accused went beyond mere matter of compensation between subjects and showed such disregard for the life and safety of others to amount to a crime against the state, deserving punishment.”
MR: No real MR required, just for the conduct to fall below the standard of the reasonable man, they can demonstrate a criminal disregard for safety, criminal inattention or gross ignorance.