| Hint | Answer | % Correct |
|---|---|---|
| But for test, gave dying mum poison. | R v White [1910] | 75%
|
| More than de minimis: Drug dealer. | Cato [1976] | 50%
|
| Three pronged test: didn't put out fire that they started | Miller [1983] | 38%
|
| Indirect intention. | R v Woollen | 38%
|
| Subjective recklessness: Stole gas meter to get money that caused gas leak in another house, killing inhabitant. | Cunningham [1957] | 25%
|
| Thin skull rule: pre-existing religious beliefs. | R v Blaue [1975] | 25%
|
| Objective recklessness: Drunkenly set fire to hotel, said that drunk danger top others did not cross his mind. | Caldwell [1982] | 13%
|
| Third party: started chain of events. | Cheshire [1991] | 13%
|
| Blameworthy cause, learner driver was not to blame as V was at fault for accident. | Hughes [2013] | 13%
|
| More than de minimus, car chase with friend, D's conduct need not be 'principle or substantial cause of death' | Kimsey [1996] | 13%
|
| Return to subjective recklessness: Kids set fire to newspapers, set bins alight and then a shop. | R v G [2004] | 13%
|
| Third party: Died to antibiotic which was allergic to. | Jordan [1956] | 0%
|
| Thin skull rule: pre-exisiting physical conditions. | Master (Jitesh) [2007] | 0%
|
| Intervening acts: fight or flight. | Roberts [1972], Marjoram [2000] | 0%
|
| Operating cause, train accident, took up rails. | R v Benge (1865) | 0%
|