Criminal

Question 1

Attorney-General’s
Reference (no. 2 of
1992)

Answer 1

Court of Appeal: “the defence of automatism requires a total destruction of voluntary control on the defendant’s part. Impaired, reduced, or partial
control is not enough” Lord Taylor CJ

Question 2

Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789

Answer 2

When is the end of life?

• The 3 Law Lords assumed that destruction of the brain stem entailed death; a person in PVS was alive and made this assumption for persons in profound and permanent comas too.

Is an omission to act be criminal?

• The court recognized the intention of death but classified it as omission to act since there was no duty to treat if treatment was not in the best
  interests of the patient.
• Since there was no prospect of the treatment improving his condition, the treatment was futile and there was no interest to prolong his life.

Question 3

R v Miller

Answer 3

Is an Omission a Criminal act?

• The defendant had created a dangerous situation in which he owed a duty to prevent or reduce the risk by his own efforts or if necessary by summoning the fire brigade

Question 4

R v Stone & Robinson [1977] 1 QB 354

Answer 4

Does an omission to
act constitute the
actus reus for
homicide?

• D CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER
  1. Stone and Dobinson were found liable for her death as they had assumed a responsibility to her by taking her in [mens rea] - not relational, she started to take care.
  2. Not murder because they didn’t intend to kill her or cause her serious harm.
  3. They failed to look after her and ensure that she got the medical help she needed [actus reus - omission]

Question 5

R v Roberts [1971] 56 Cr. App. R. 95

Answer 5

Did his acts cause the
harm?

• There is no need to establish an intention or recklessness as to the level of force under s.47. It is sufficient to establish that the D had intention or was reckless as to the assault or battery [mens rea]
• Where the victim’s actions were a natural result of the defendant’s actions it doesn’t matter whether the defendant could foresee the result.
• Only where the victim’s actions were so daft or unexpected that no reasonable man could have expected it would there be a break in the chain of causation.

Question 6

R v Jordan (1956) 40 Cr App R 152

Answer 6

Can medical treatment break the chain of causation?

That death resulting from any normal treatment employed to deal with a felonious injury may be regarded as caused by the felonious injury, but that the same principle does not apply where the treatment employed is abnormal.

Question 7

R v Smith [1959] 2 QB 35

Answer 7

That, as at the time of death the original wound was still an operating and a substantial cause, death could properly be said to be the result of the wound, albeit that some other cause also operated.

Question 8

R v Malcherek [1981] 2 All ER 422

Answer 8

That the fact that the victim had died despite or because of the medical treatment given by skilled medical practitioners did not exonerate the assailant from responsibility for the death, and the discontinuance of the treatment did not in the circumstances break the chain of causation between initial injury and death; and that, therefore, the issue of causation had been properly withdrawn from the jury