Actus Reus AR = the conduct element. Prescribes what needs to be done‚ in what circumstance and with what result (but not necessarily all three). Result: V is killed (note that we don’t really criminalise results in themselves‚ but rather the causation of results). Conduct: in rape: penetration. Circumstance: property belongs to another. All crimes have an AR. It is possible to have missing MR elements but this is not so for AR. Omissions Stephen LJ: “It is not a crime to cause death or injury
Premium Tort law Causality Actus reus
removed. This factual test for causation was accepted in the case of International Shipping Co (Pty) Ltd v Bentley. In the case of X‚ if the fight between X and Y
Premium Causality Causality
PART 5 : CAUSATION ( Neethling‚ Potgieter‚ Visser: Law of Delict‚ p 159 – 193 • Minister of Police v Skosana 1977 (1) SA 31 (A) • S v Mokgethi en Andere 1990 (1) SA 32 (A) • Meevis v Sheriff‚ Pretoria East 1999 (2) SA 389 (T) • Mukheiber v Raath and Another 1999 (3) SA 1065 (SCA) • Road Accident Fund v Russell 2001 (2) SA 34 (SCA) • Gibson v Berkowitz and Another [1997] 1 All SA 99 (W) • Groenewald v Groenewald [1998] 2 All SA 335 (A) • Minister of Safety & Security v Hamilton
Premium Causality Law
Homicide- Murder and Constructive murder Wallace (1986) Homicide: The Social Reality: 1. Homicide is socially‚ historically and culturally determined 2. Variety of offenders/victims/social settings 3. Interpersonal in nature‚ rather than instrumental/ideological 4. Interpersonal killings largely involve intimates 5. Homicide patterns reflect cultural norms 6. Spontaneous rather than premeditated 7. Offenders exhibit a wide range of moral culpability Primarily committed by males 84% in 2006-7 Partial
Premium Criminal law Causality
Study Questions 3.3 1- What is the libertarian argument for free will? Two arguments are often made in favor for libertarian free will: A- Argument from experience: We can freely choose and that the choices we make are up to us. In countless situations‚ we have the impression that there are alternatives open to us and that nothing prevents us from choosing any one from- or from not choosing. We continually have the experience that we are acting freely. B- Argument from Deliberation: jus
Premium Free will Metaphysics Determinism
Before I begin it is pertinent to note the disparate positions on the problem of human freedom. In "Human Freedom and the Self"‚ Roderick M. Chisholm takes the libertarian stance which is contiguous with the doctrine of incompatibility. Libertarians believe in free will and recognize that freedom and determinism are incompatible. The determinist also follow the doctrine of incompatibility‚ and according to Chisholm’s formulation‚ their view is that every event involved in an act is caused by
Premium Free will Causality Determinism
An Essay on Clinical Negligence “We have always thought of causation as a logical‚ almost mathematical business. To intrude policy into causation is like saying that two plus two does not equal to four because‚ for policy reasons‚ it should not.” (Charles Foster NLJ 5/11/2004 page 1644). To what extent do you consider that Charles Foster is correct in that causation and clinical negligence should be a “mathematical business” and the courts have‚ by introducing matters of policy‚ confused
Premium Tort Negligence Law
3.2 >>> 1.what is soft determinism? >>> Soft determinism( compatibilism) is the doctrine that determined actions can nevertheless be free. >>> >>> 2. What is traditional compatibilism? >>> Traditional compatibilism is the doctrine that free actions are caused by one’s will and not externally constrained. >>> >>> 3. What is stace’s explanation of how all our actions have causes ‚yet some actions are free? > His explanation is those acts that are directly cause by the internal psychological
Premium Causality Free will Determinism
LEXICAL TAXONOMY By Dr. K.B. Kiingi This paper purports to lay a firmly principled method of taxonomizing the lexicon of any given human language. It will be recalled that earlier attempts by writers like Roget (1852)‚ Dornseiff (1934)‚ Hallig and Von Wartburg (1952)‚ Wehrle and Eggers (1961) and McArthur (1981) have all provoked a hail of critical discussions as manifested in Ballmer and Brennenstuhl (1986:112-126) and Jackson (1988:216222). The overall verdict of the discussants is that the taxonomies
Premium Trigraph
I am assessing Jimmy’s liability for the death of Bruce. This question is set out under the field of Homicide‚ as there has been an unlawful killing. The likely charge against Jimmy is Murder. Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being with the intention to kill or cause GBH. (Moloney) for the first part of the question I will present the prosecution case and for the second part I will present the defence and lastly I will conclude. The actus Reus of murder is the unlawful killing
Premium Law Criminal law Legal terms