• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

jane austin

Extracts from this document...


In order to be liable for most criminal offences it is necessary for the defendant to have committed the actus reus; the wrongful act, whilst having the necessary mens rea; the guilty intention. Both are explained within the common law or by an act of parliament. For example in the Theft Act 1968 the actus reus is described as "the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another". The actus reus will usually be a positive act and must be legally defined as being wrong. In order to convict a person of murder it is necessary to show that the act of the defendant was the substantial cause of the crime and the prosecution must prove that the defendant caused the victims death. Upon hearing the case the courts must decide whether the defendant was a factual cause of the victim's death. This test is known as the sin qua non or the "but-for" test. The court must ask themselves would the victim still have lived but-for the act of the accused. The defendant will not become liable for the death if the victim would have died at the same time regardless. The case of white applies this test; the accused put cyanide into his mothers drink intending to kill her. She died from a heart attack which happened before the poison had taken affect, he was not liable for murder. ...read more.


In the case of Blaue the accused stabbed the victim through the heart and liver 19 times, a blood transfusion was needed to save her life, however the victim was a Jehovah's witness and refused on religious grounds. The accused was liable for her death. In the case of Hayward the accused threatened his wife in a drunken rage. She was in so much fear she ran out into the street and collapsed and died. She had an over-active thyroid gland which made her susceptible to over activity. The accused was liable for her manslaughter. The case off Mckechnie also applied this principle of causation. Another principle applied to causation is the escape of the victim. This occurs where the defendant has behaved in such a way that his victim is put in fear and thus tries to escape; causation will not be removed if death occurs as a result unless the defendant has been grossly negligent. In the case of Pitts the victim was in fear of one accused and jumped from a bridge into a river and drowned. Causation was not removed. In the case of Roberts, the daftness test was created. The accused gave a lift to a girl in his car; he told her to undress and then tried to remove her top. ...read more.


Within causation the broad concerns of a modern multi-cultural society are considered as the law takes into account religious beliefs as in the case of Blaue where the wishes of a Jehovah's Witness where considered. Even when causation is broken, the defendant may still be charged with a non-fatal assault. However there are also several disadvantages to the rules concerning causation. Firstly the courts are very reluctant to break causation which can be harsh on the defendant as some could suggest in the case of Blaue. Also the defendant may still be liable where the victim refuses medical treatment which could have saved their life as in Blaue. Some academics have argued in such circumstances the charge should be reduced to one of grievous bodily harm (S.8) where ultimately the sentence would still be up to life. It is also suggested that it is unfair to convict a defendant where the wounds he inflicted were almost healed but then significantly worsened by a member of the medical profession as in the case of Cheshire. Ultimately once the defendant has committed the actus reus the la takes the view that h will be responsible for all of the consequences that result from that wrongful act. Causation will only be removed by an act of gross negligence on the part of the victim, a third party or intervening event. On grounds of public policy the courts are extremely reluctant to break the link in causation. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Classics section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Classics essays

  1. Why did the Romans invade Britain and how did they affect it?

    Each of these towns was run differently because there was no concrete plan by which the Romans wanted the British aristocrats to abide. There were two other developments that changed the social dynamic of Britain . Those were the villas and public baths both of which were made famous by the Romans.

  2. What was the function of hadrians wall

    This idea of there being almost too many gates is highlighted by the gates at Chester's fort, as it has been suggest that cavalry forts such as this one needed three gates north of the wall to allow the release of the cavalry against an attack- however archaeological evidence showing

  1. The Moving Image

    They are both the person in each family whom keeps them together; they do everything for the family, and receive little in return. They don't get appreciated enough from the rest of the family. Just Also, we have Homer and Jim who are alike in many ways.

  2. Euripides was accused by his contempories of being a woman hater. Why do you ...

    She knew the result she wanted to get and she got it. Clytemnestra, if you haven't read or seen Aeschylus' 'Agamemnon', comes across as a less conniving woman than her daughter. She comes across as a very powerful and domineering woman.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work