But for a liar s action (the ice will be safe) would Derek be drown?

[Pagett] Liar s action must be operative and substantial cause of the case [Martin] Actual thing that cause the operative cause [Malcherek] =Arguable Substantial cause of Dereck s death? [Smith] Duty of law to save Dereck? Five situations of omission: Special relationship--- P and child------in Dereck case not apply Assumption of duty of care under voluntary conduct-------Liar is not assumed to have any responsibility--------not long term reliance relationship on the statement-------person feed a baby but cease to do so afterwards attracts liability Stone v. Dobbinson------A daughter lived in the same house in Dobbinson---daughter became sick and develop anorexia-----

statue-------break the law you are liable Contractual------Pittwood-------gate keeper to ensure people do not across the train-------a duty to act to protect third party

Creation of dangerous situation-------Miller------failure to act-----If u did not cause the situation-----not the case------in Dereck s case----if liar just say I don t know the Dereck may not get on the ice----not clearest circumstances But for liar s action, would Mary get drown? Does liar has sth to do with Mary s death? Did liar s action is a substantial and operating cause? The victim is taken as the one when he finds him? [Blaue] If Mary drowning is very unforeseeable and daft then not attract liablility Murder----intention (direct or oblique [virtual certainty incidental upon pursuing ultimate aim]) to kill or cause GBH--------IN Derek s case-----not virtually certain Gross negligence manslaughter------omission to kill Derek-------failure to act----the negligence that jury to uphold conviction------not in Derek s case. Recklessness-----defendants must know the chance of killing Derek----

Murder------Oblique Intention------not in Mary s case------

Voluntary manslaughter----------cannot extrapolate from R v. Roberts---Need to write the fact of case----only when relate to question---------remember the court held Q.2 Murder----AR------lawfully killing------MR----- intention to kill and cause GBH Hardie------diminished responsibility Moloney-----is it the ultimate aim-----Defence------loss of self control (provocation)-----Coroners and Justice Act 2009----subjective test------suffer from self control induce from qualifying trigger( fear from seriously assaulted and sby did sth seriously wrong to you) Freddy lose self-control and act beyond Steward s statement-------not need to be sudden-----not provocation and not a qualifying trigger------2nd part-----objective test-----whether reasonable person have such normal tolerance under such situation--------but a normal person would not get up and kill him when he is in Freddy s shoe------disprove it beyond reasonable doubt Defence-----Diminished responsibility------medical evidence to show the condition-----defendants must be impaired to understand his conduct and behave rationally Freddy calm down and came back to do the same thing-------no loss of selfcontrol---no diminished responsibility Thronton case------loss of control Baillie cases-----defendant become very mad kills somebody and drives a very long way Opportunity to bathroom------to determine Freddy whether he is out of control Revenge is not a loss of self-control

Insane automatism means internally caused------proof on balance of probability Sane automatism means externally caused-------prosecutor need to prove beyond reasonable doubt Hypoglycemia----- fail to use drug according to instruction Self-induced automatism-----morrie------not resolves in complete acquittal use outside prescription-----knowing might become dangerous------cannot protect him from manslaughter is him being reckless-----aware the prescription-----know taking 2 tablets is dangerous----Bailey epilepsy------insane automatism------proof on balance of probability-------guilty not by reason-------Sullivan taken the advice of doctor-------external cause by taking of drugs------done nothing wrong-----given that is not reckless non-prescription drugs-------drug is widely acceptable------not reckless------Hardie--------otherwise basic intent crime

Enter the premise and intention of steal--------burgulary--------a trespasser with intention to steal Swapping the labels-----s1 of theft act-----acting if the property as it owns----dishonestly appropriation With intention of permanently deprive the shop of the true value of the product----walking around at shop----since they are not the owner------possibly it is a theft-----dishonesty?------Throwing to rubbish bin-----pdt damaged and may cannot be found-----intent to deprive----s1 Criminal Damage 1971-----destroy without excuse-----do it recklessly or intended to do so-----it is convicted Not completion of depriving property---Not Criminal damage-------try the dress in good faith-----not reckless------RvG Put the thing in pocket-----appropriation-----Dishonesty--------putting in the pockets do it for it= permanently deprive?--------questionable------change mind at CCTV

Accessories Batter Act--------procurs with the commission of crime AR----Murrary kill V MR----intent to kill V Jim may not expect killing of V--------but upon collaboration of robbery----- forsee a risk to have killing AR----Murray----but 2nd party can also being guilty-----in agreement and presence at the crime scene-------intended to do robbery------know there are safeguards-----expect to use firearm Jim------stand back at murder-----argue not expecting to kill V------no MR----unforseen result To put Jim in murder-------he should foresee that sby on kill----Chan Wing Siu ------if agreement not to use the weapons-----but realise that Murrary work outside agreement-----still culpable-----[Roberts and Day][ Amies, Ryder, Kite and Allis] [OFlaherty, Ryan and Tourssaint] In [Beccara and Cooper], withdrawal from crime-----do more than expressing the intention to escape from crime-----call the police------Boris did not call-----just stay calm Incompleteness is not vital-------conspiracy to rob------attempted to rob----more than preparation---Criinal Attempt Act 1991 s1-----firearms, safeguard------shooting Victor for getting money= more than prep.

not Duress----attempt to threaten his family------he has already in agreement but refuse when firearm known-----responsibility for crime-----No practical measure to stop the robbery-----as 2nd party----not effectively withdraw from robbery