The causation in fact using the “but for test” means that Raul can only be guilty if the consequence would not have happened as and when it did ‘but for’ Raul’s conduct (R v Pagett & R v White). The fact that he pushed Christiano resulted in margaret’s injury’s and without that act, Margaret would not have died.
The Mens Rea of murder is an intention to kill (Mohan) or an intention to cause GBH (Vickers). Murder is a specific intent offence, meaning that it can only be committed with intention. There are two forms of intention, direct and oblique. Direct intention is when the defendant intends consequences of his or her actions this is not the case with both Raul and Doctor Smith, they did not intend Margaret’s death. Oblique intention is when the defendant’s main aim is not to kill, but when they want to achieve a different a objective. And in achieving that aim causes the victim’s death. This would apply to both Raul and Doctor Smith, both intended to do what they do, but Raul didn’t know his push on Christiano would eventually kill Margaret, and Doctor Smith intended to give Margaret the penicillin but did not know she would die from it with an allergic reaction.
Defences such as loss of control and diminished responsibility would not apply to either Raul or Doctor Smith, therefore voluntary manslaughter would not be available to them. This leaves the defence of Involuntary Manslaughter, in which includes gross negligence manslaughter, Unlawful act manslaughter and reckless manslaughter which is no used longer after Adamako and Lidar. Considering Unlawful act manslaughter, both Raul and Doctor Smith committed an act and not an omission (Lowe). Both acts were unlawful – pushing Christiano and giving penicillin despite her allergy (Lamb) and also criminal in nature (Franklin). Both acts were dangerous views objectively (Church) Raul knew there was risk of some harm to Christiano and with transferred malice this can be transferred to Margaret, the minimum from the act of pushing is some harm (Watson), however doctor smith did not know she was allergic to the drug, if he did, he would not have given it to her. Then it must be considered whether the unlawful act caused the death (Kennedy) (See causation previously). Both have the mens rea, and there is no need to prove whether doctor smith saw any harm in his actions or not (Newbury & Jones). Considering Gross Negligence Manslaughter it must be proven that there was a duty of care, doctor smith owed a duty of care to his patient, however Raul did not necessarily. (Adamnako). The breach of the duty of care must cause the death, this is exactly what happened to Margaret, doctor smith had a duty of care to know that she was allergic to the drug that killed her, (See causation previously). Gross negligence was present “showed such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime” (Bateman) the negligent medical treatment would qualify for this. It can be said that there is a risk of death from both actions, the push and failure to identify what Margaret was allergic to (Misra).
In conclusion, it is likely that Raul will redress the offence of murder to unlawful act manslaughter as it is his act which caused the eventual death, and not murder as there was a break in the chain of causation. Doctor Smith from murder to gross negligence manslaughter, as his negligent medical treatment caused the death, and as a doctor he owed a duty of care to Margaret, committing gross negligence when not identifying that she was allergic to the drug.
