Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Case Studies of AR (Omission cases (Legal Principle - A statute can give…

- - - - Anyone under the same household as a child or vulnerable adult who is at significant risk of serious physical harm has a duty to take reasonable steps to protect them from this risk e.g. to alert the police/social services etc.
    - - Refusal to provide a breath specimen to a police officer when requested can amount to a criminal omission
  - - - D was responsible for manslaughter by omission as his job was to close the level crossing gate but negligently failed to do so and the train crashed into a hay cart resulting in a man's death
  - - - Responsible for murder by omission because they starved their daughter (Nelly) which resulted in murder of their child. Proctor was also guilty of murder as she has taken the responsibility of looking after the child (as mother) when she lived in with Gibbins. Both under duty to protect their child
    - - manslaughter by omission because her half-sister brought heroin and administered to V. The mother (D) who should have stopped her did not and even put her to bed to let her 'recover' which resulted in her death as she did not call 999.
  - - - responsible for manslaughter by omission because they have assumed responsibility to look after stone's sister (fanny 45 yr old) and failed to sought for medical attention when knowing she has anorexia and led to her death.
        Didn't take the correct measurable steps in looking after Fanny
  - - - Responsible for misconduct in a public office because he saw a man get kicked out of a night club and V was kicked and abused by a bouncer, which D have not done anything to stop it although it is his duty to act.
        D argued the offence could not be committed by an omission as it specifically required misconduct
  - - - Responsible for criminal damage (arson) because he was squatting in a public place and was smoking then he fell asleep and accidentally lighted the mattress on the fire. When he woke up he saw the fire but instead of attempting to stop it, he walked to the next room to carry on sleeping.
    - - Responsible for manslaugter by omission because evans(step-sister) administered heroin to Carley and then put her to bed causing C's death
- - - - D put poison in his mom's drink but the mother died from a heart attack before even touching the drink. Although D was not the factual cause of his mother's death he still guilty of attempted murder
  - - - D and his friend is involved in a high speed car chase. D lost control and hit the other car resulted in V's death.Judge directed jury saying that driving didn't cause the death as long as there was another reason. The Court of Appeal upheld D's conviction for death caused by dangerous driving
  - - - 'overwhelms the D's contribution and is so potent in bringing about death that it renders the D's contribution as insignificant '
        
        R v Cheshire
        
        V shot in the stomach and thigh. Went to have a surgery and found a breathing problem therefore inserted tracheotomy and after 2 months V died from rare complication left by tracheotomy. By the time he dies there was no problem - virtually healed
        
        'palpably wrong' medical treatment did break the chain of causation, this is because the original injuries were no longer 'operating'
        
        R v Jordan
        
        V was stabbed in the stomach and was in hospital healing well but then doctor gave him antibiotics which V had an allergic reaction therefore stopped it then the next day another doctor came and gave a higher dosage of antibiotics and V dies from allergic reaction
      - Won't break chain of causation
        
        Even 'thoroughly bad' medical treatment won't break the chain of causation, if the original injuries are still 'operating and substancial'
        
        R v Smith
        
        2 soldiers had a fight. V was stabbed with a rifle in the lungs. V carried to the medical centre but on the way he was dropped and when he arrived he had artificial respiration and because of the amount of pressure put on the wound V dies. (75% less likely to recover due to bad treatment) Former attacker was still responsible for V's death
      - R v Paggett
        
        D Used pregnant as a shield from the police. Police attempt to shoot the D but instead missed and shot the V (girlfriend) - baby died but this does not count as murder or manslaughter as the death of the baby is unborn therefore no responsibility needed
    - - 'Daft or Unexpected'
        
        R v Roberts
        
        Girl jumped out of the car to avoid D's sexual advances. car travelling between 20-40 mph and girl was injured from it. D was held liable for her injuries as she wouldn't have jumped if he had not done such an action
      - Chain of causation will not break
        
        'within a range of responses' one would expect in a 'flight or fight' situation
        
        R v Williams and Davies
        
        They picked up a hitch-hiker and V jumped out of the car at 30 mph and hit his head and died. Prosecution alleged (without proof) that D were in the course of robbing him when he jumped out thus their action amounted to constructive manslaughter
        
        self-neglect : if V makes own injury worse this still won't break chain of causation
        
        R v Dear
        
        D's daughter accused a man of sexually abusing her. D used a slanley knife and repeatedly slashed it on V. V transported to hospital for recovery but he reopened his would in attempt of suicide. 2 days later of attack, V died. D was responsible but D argues that it was the man's own action that led to his deathwhich amounted to novus actus interveniens
        
        R v Holland
        
        D had a fight with D and inflicted a deep cut on V. V neglected to treat his own wounds and soon gangrene sets in and V dies from infection. D was still responsible for V's death although it is the V who was responsible as he refused the treatment
  - - - Young woman was stabbed and was transported to the hospital for a blood transfusion but the V was a Jehovah's witness therefore do not allow blood transfusion. Even though she put her self at a vulnerable state, Law says that you must take the victim as you find them (thin skull rule)