Date: Thursday, 22 November 2018 Omissions Lesson Outcomes: Describe the exceptions to the general rule on omissions Describe the rule on causation & apply to scenarios Specification links: Actus reus: voluntary acts and omissions; causation Key vocabulary Actus reus, omissions, causation, voluntary/involuntary acts Query question If a doctor turned off a life support machine, would this count as an omission for the actus reus of murder or manslaughter??? 1

Doctor’s Duty Discontinuing treatment of a patient is not an omission. Airdale NHS Trust v Bland (1993) Bland had been crushed at the Hillsborough disaster. As a result he was severely brain damaged & in a pvs. Doctor’s asked for a ruling that could stop them feeding him. Court ruled that doctors could even though this meant that Bland would die. This was held to be in his best interests.

Issues surrounding omissions Should England have a Good Samaritan law? There is a contradiction over the duty of doctors. Under the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 all members of a household are liable for failure to protect a child. The outcome in Stone v Dobinson can be seen to be harsh. So many exceptions mean that it is not certain when a duty to act will exist – this means the law is capable of expanding to cover more situations.

Khan and Khan (1998) Ds supplied heroin to a new user who took it in their presence and then collapsed. They left her alone and by the time they returned to the flat she had died. The Court of Appeal in it’s obiter said that there could be a duty to summon medical assistance in certain circumstances. So that a D could be liable for not doing so.

In each case, consider whether the defendant will be liable for the death that occurred. For this activity you only need to consider the actus reus. a) D is walking in the country on a cold winter afternoon. She comes across a large, deep lake. A man is in the middle of this lake, apparently drowning. D does nothing to try to rescue him. b) D, a hospital surgeon, is on call. This means she may be rung up at home and called into the hospital whenever necessary. D is telephoned but chooses to finish a game of chess before setting off for the hospital. This takes thirty minutes. As a result of the delay, a patient who has been admitted as an emergency case suffers serious injuries.

Date: Thursday, 22 November 2018 Causation Lesson Outcomes: Describe the rule on causation Apply knowledge gained to scenarios Specification links: Actus reus: voluntary acts and omissions; causation Key vocabulary Actus reus, omissions, causation, voluntary/involuntary acts Think about this scenario… D used his pregnant girlfriend as a shield while he shot at armed policemen. The police fired back and the girlfriend was killed. Did D cause her death? 6

Their act must be both a ‘factual’ and ‘legal’ cause of death. The prosecution must prove the injury/death was caused by the defendant’s act. Their act must be both a ‘factual’ and ‘legal’ cause of death. Read pp188-190 Write a short paragraph explaining each of the following terms, making reference to relevant authority: a) Factual cause b) Legal cause c) Chain of causation 3) In what circumstances may medical treatment break the chain of causation? 4) In what circumstances may a victim’s own act break the chain of causation? Where a consequence must be proved, prosecution must show that the defendants conduct was: The factual cause of that consequence, and The legal cause of that consequence, and There was no intervening act which broke the chain of causation. 7

Factual cause The defendant can only be found guilty if the consequence would not have happened ‘but for’ the defendants conduct. Pagett (1983) White (1910) The defendant can only be found guilty if the consequence would not have happened ‘but for’ the defendants conduct. This can be seen in the case of Pagett (1983) Pagett (1983) – the defendant took his pregnant girlfriend from her home by force. He then held the girl hostage. Police called on him to surrender. D came out, holding the girl in front of him and firing at the police. The police returned fire and the girl was killed by police bullets. D was convicted of manslaughter. Pagett was guilty because the girl would not have died ‘but for’ him using her as a shield in the shoot-out. The opposite situation can be seen in White (1910), where the defendant put cyanide in his mothers drink. She died before she drank it and therefore White was found not guilty of murder but guilty of attempted murder. 8

Legal cause There may be more than one act contributing to the consequence. Some of these acts may be carried out by other people than the defendant. The defendant can be found guilty if his conduct was more than a ‘minimal’ cause of the consequence. Kimsey (1996) – more than a slight or trifling link There may be more than one act contributing to the consequence. Some of these acts may be carried out by other people than the defendant. The defendant can be found guilty if his conduct was more than a ‘minimal’ cause of the consequence. There may be more than one person whose act contributed to the death. The defendant can be guilty even though his conduct was not the only cause of the death. In Kimsey both drivers were driving at high speed, but the one driver could be found guilty. Kimsey (1996) D was involved in a high-speed car chase with a friend. She lost control of her car and the other driver was killed in the crash. The evidence about what happened immediately before D lost control was not very clear. The trial judge directed the jury that D’s driving did not have to be ‘the principal, or substantial cause of the death, as long as you are sure that it was a cause and that there was something more than a slight or trifling link’. The Court of Appeal upheld D’s conviction for causing death by dangerous driving 9

Kimsey (1996) D was involved in a high-speed car chase with a friend. She lost control of her car and the other driver was killed in the crash. The evidence about what happened immediately before D lost control was not very clear. The trial judge directed the jury that D’s driving did not have to be ‘the principal, or substantial cause of the death, as long as you are sure that it was a cause and that there was something more than a slight or trifling link’. The Court of Appeal upheld D’s conviction for causing death by dangerous driving

Read the sheet on causation Summarise causation in one paragraph only Apply law to these scenarios. Remember to use authority. A prostitute leaves her new born baby in an orchard covered with leaves. The baby is attacked by a bird and dies. A man frightens his wife and in order to escape his threats she jumps from a second floor window and is seriously injured. Bob and Damien are involved in a fight. Bob runs away as he is very frightened. He falls over and is hit by a passing car. Tony stabs Gordon piercing his lung and causing internal bleeding. His friends carry Gordon to a doctor’s surgery down the road but drop him as he is very heavy. The doctor does not realise he has severe internal bleeding aggravated by being dropped and gives him incorrect treatment. He dies two hours later. Sophie shoots Edward. He is seriously injured. The ambulance taking Edward to the hospital is hit by an out of control lorry and Edward suffers severe head injuries. At the hospital he contracts MRSA (the super bug) and dies three days later.