his victim as he finds them therefore he was convicted of murder []. Therefore the fact that Sarah had a skull defect would not affect the legal responsibility of her death.
It can be said that martin has factual causation for Sarah’s death, as if he hadn’t dug the hole, Sarah would never have fallen over therefore would not have died. However it is harder to establish whether or not he was the legal cause of her death, as the council could also be seen to be at fault. If the street had lights then Sarah may have seen the hole in the pavement and may have avoided her fall. Although even with street lights you cannot be certain she would have definitely avoided the fall; therefore Martin’s act of digging the hole in the middle of the pavement and then leaving it unattended was the “substantial and operating” cause of her death and as a result he is legally responsible.
When pursuing the death of Esther the main legal issue that arises is that of omissions. An omission is the failure to act, there is generally no rule act but there are exceptions. For example, a duty to act due to a close relationship i.e. the relationship of a parent and child or a relationship between spouses. This is shown in Gibbons and Proctor when a man and woman are convicted of murder of the Gibbons child as she starved to death because they withheld food. [] Other omissions include a duty arising out of contract which means the failure to fulfil a contractual obligation is likely to endanger lives – R v Pittwood. As well as the assumption of responsibility which occurs if a person voluntarily undertakes to care for another, shown in Stone and Dobinson or the creation of a
dangerous situation – R v miller []. The final exception to the rule is that of a duty arising from a post of public office which requires them to do so e.g. police officers which is shown in . Dytham failed to intervene when he saw a man being beaten to death 30 yards away. [] So as the father of Esther, Sam has a duty to act due to his close relationship. The fact he has a duty to act doesn’t necessarily mean he has to physically jump into the river to save her; as he can’t swim getting in the river may be putting himself in harm’s way. The fact that Sam ran to the phone box to call the fire brigade in order to get help fulfils his duty to act therefore he would not be held to be the cause of Esther’s death. It is harder to determine whether or not Emma had a duty to act. You may be able to argue that they had a close relationship as Emma is maybe like a step-mother which could be said to be parental but as it says “new girlfriend” it would be unlikely for this to hold up in court. You could also say by being Sam’s girlfriend she automatically assumes responsibility for Esther but this would also be hard to argue in court. Emma is also a trained lifeguard so it could be a contractual duty but does she have a duty to act when she isn’t working? It would depend on the judge/jury whether these duties to act would hold up but if one of them did then Emma would have a duty to act and would therefore be legally responsible for her death. Rodney as a police officer has a duty to act, it is obvious that it would be more important to try and help save Esther than deal with Robert. If he really needed to deal with Robert, all he would have to do was report to get help or “back up” to help Esther. But he didn’t therefore Robert failed to act and it could be said that he is legally responsible for Esther’s death.
When looking at the death of Madhu it is clear that Teresa would be held legally responsible for the death. This is because she failed to act when she had a duty due to her contract of being a paramedic to try and save lives to the best of their ability; which Teresa clearly did not do. By stopping off at the Bank and then treating Carol for something that “doesn’t look too serious” she is failing to act for Madhu which is far more important that a withdrawal from her bank and the minor injuries that Carol had. If she went straight to the house of Madhu, she probably would have made it in time to save her life. But is she is legally responsible? There is no certainty or guarantee that even if she did go straight to
Madhu’s house like she was supposed to, that she would have been survived with Teresa medical attention. Therefore it would be unreasonable to say that Teresa was the cause of Madhu’s death.
There are a number of people that could be responsible for the death of Harpreet. Azar cause Harpreet’s knife wound. The fact that it was meant for Shelli does not matter due to the principle of transferred malice. It states if the defendant wanted to kill x but accidently killed y his intention would be transferred to y therefore still liable. []. It is clear that Azar is the factual cause of Harpreet’s death as if it wasn’t for his action Harpreet wouldn’t have died. I now have to determine if there was a break in the chain of causation by looking at the other people involved in the situation. Shelli left Harpreet injured and ran away, she failed to act but Shelli was a part of the situation but didn’t actually create the dangerous situation. Which means she did not owe a duty to act toward Harpreet; therefore
she did not have a part in causing the death of Harpreet. The issue of the switching of the life support machine is seen as very controversial as it debated as of when a person is actually dead. Arnold turned of Harpreet’s life support machine which in theory killed her. But as the tests were supposed to be in the morning, it had not yet been determined whether or not she was already brain dead. If she was the doctors would have probably switched the machine off anyway. Therefore very hard to actually determine whether Arnold is legally responsible because there is no way of knowing whether she was in fact brain- dead or not. So by switching the life support machine off did Arnold break Azar’s chain of causation? No, as the injuries that Azar caused in the first place were the reason that she was on the life support machine and would still be the substantial and operating cause of her death when it was switched off. Therefore Azar caused Harpreet death and is legally responsible.
Bibliography
1. Michael Allen, Textbook on criminal Law (Oxford press 2005) 8th edition pg 33
2. R v White [1910] 2 K.B. 124 Accessed via Westlaw
3. R v Jordan (1956) 40 cr. App R 152 Accessed via Westlaw
4. R v Smith [1959] 2 W.L.R 623 Accessed via Westlaw
5. R v Frazer [2006] EWCA Crim 1977 Accessed via Westlaw
6. R v Blaue 11 W.L.R 1411 Accessed via Westlaw
7. Gibbons and Proctor (1916) 13 cr. App. R. 134 Accessed via Westlaw
8. Principles of Criminal Law, Andrew Ashworth 4th edition (Oxford press 2003) p111
9. R v Dytham [1979] 3 W.L.R 467 Accessed via Westlaw
10. Smith and Hogan Criminal Law by David Ormerod (oxford press 2005) p113
[1] Michael Allen, Textbook on criminal Law (Oxford press 2005) 8th edition pg 33
[2] R v White [1910] 2 K.B. 124
[3] R v Jordan (1956) 40 cr. App R 152
[4] R v Smith [1959] 2 W.L.R 623
[5] R v Frazer [2006] EWCA Crim 1977
[6] R v Blaue 11 W.L.R 1411
[7] Gibbons and Proctor (1916) 13 cr. App. R. 134
[8] Principles of Criminal Law, Andrew Ashworth 4th edition (Oxford press 2003) p111
[9] R v Dytham [1979] 3 W.L.R 467
[10] Smith and Hogan Criminal Law by David Ormerod (oxford press 2005) p113
