GDL Law Notes GDL Criminal Law Notes
A collection of the best GDL notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through applications from top students and carefully evaluating each on accuracy, formatting, logical structure, spelling/grammar, conciseness and "wow-factor". In short these are what we believe to be the strongest set of GDL notes available in the UK this year. This collection of GDL notes is fully updated for recent exams, also making them the most up-to-date GDL study materials ...
The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our GDL Criminal Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Actus Reus: “unlawful killing of a reasonable person under the Queen’s peace”
“Unlawful”
Unless:
Killing enemy soldiers in battle
Advancement of justice (e.g. death penalty)
Self-defence (if necessary in the prevention of crime or protection of self, others or property)
Killing
Must cause the death of the victim
“A reasonable person in being”
Victim must be a person (human being)
‘In being’ when born alive and capable of independent life
R v Poulton (1832) – child must be fully expelled from the mother’s body
AG-Ref (No 3 of 1994): stabbing of pregnant woman, child was born prematurely and died but HL said couldn’t be murder of the child as it was not a live person when stabbed
But – R v Reeves (1839) – not necessary for umbilical cord to be cut
Determining the point of death – brain has stopped workin
Causation
Factual Causation: The “but for” test
But for the act, the relevant consequence would not have occurred
R v White [1910) – W put poison in his mother’s drink (2 grains of cyanide of potassium), with the intention of killing her – she was then found dead, but due to a heart attack – no evidence she had drunk any of the liquid – W acquitted of murder because no causal link – but convicted of attempted murder
Legal Causation
The consequence must be caused by the defendant’s culpable act:
R v Dalloway – (1847) D was driving horse and cart without holding the reigns: child ran out in front of the cart and was killed - but even if the D had been holding the reigns, he wouldn’t have been able to stop the car. If he had not been driving the cart the child would not have been killed (factual causation): but couldn’t show that the death was due to the culpable element in his act
R v Marchant (2004) – Motorcyclist was killed when he was impaled on the front forks of a hay-bale tractor – even if the tractor driver had covered the spikes as he was meant to, the impact with the tractor would have killed the biker anyway
The defendant’s act need not be the only cause of the prohibited consequence
R v Benge (1865) – defendant can still be liable if others are present – Benge had misread timetable – ordered gang to remove part of the track – signal-man was meant to put up signal lights and didn’t go the right distance – but so long as it could be shown that the D was negligent and his negligence was a main/substantial cause of the crash, the subsequent negligence of the train driver and flag holder were immaterial
The defendants act must be the “substantial” cause of the prohibited harm
Needs to be “operating and substantial”
R v Cato: substantial does not mean ‘really serious’ but more than a ‘de minimis, trifling one’
Latterly courts decided that it need not be substantial or really serious – R v Malcherek and Steel
R v Pagett – ‘in the law the accused’s act need not be the sole cause, or even the main cause, of the victim’s death, it being enough that his act contributed significantly to that result’
R v Kimsey (1999)- sufficient that it be more than a minimal contribution
Intervening acts and/or events which may break the chain of causation “new intervening factor” – novus actus interveniens
Medical negligence: only breaks cause if “extraordinary”
R v Smith (1959) – Smith stabbed victim and pierced his lung – then soldier dropped him twice carrying him to medical station, and then received inappropriate treatment but Smith still convicted of murder
‘even though negligence in the treatment of the victim was the immediate cause of his death, the jury should not regard it as excluding the responsibility of the defendant unless the negligent treatment was so independent of his acts, and in itself so potent in causing death, that they regard the contribution made by his acts as insignificant’
R v Cheshire (1991)– victim’s original wounds had healed – but CA held that bad medical attention didn’t break the chain – victim’s windpipe had become blocked due to a narrowing near the tracheotomy scar (doctor’s didn’t notice)
R v Jordan (1956)– Jordan convicted but then successfully granted leave – had stabbed someone, victim died 8 days later - but found that stabbing was not the cause – deceased had died of the effects of sensitivity to Terramycin –a very particular case
Intervention of third parties
R v Pagett : D used his pregnant girlfriend as a shield from police’s gunfire as he shot at them: the police...
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our GDL Criminal Law Notes.
A collection of the best GDL notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through applications from top students and carefully evaluating each on accuracy, formatting, logical structure, spelling/grammar, conciseness and "wow-factor". In short these are what we believe to be the strongest set of GDL notes available in the UK this year. This collection of GDL notes is fully updated for recent exams, also making them the most up-to-date GDL study materials ...
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get Started