Criminal Liabilities - Essay Example

?Word count 991 excluding references Criminal Liabilities Based on the facts of our case, there are at least four people who are still alive that may be held criminal liable for their actions, namely, Paul, Kathryn, Karen, Tom, and Bruno. To give us a clearer picture of the people who may be liable as well as the extent of their liabilities, let us discuss each case. a. Liability of Paul Following the death of Alf, Paul can be charged with involuntary manslaughter under the Homicide Act of 1957, given the fact that his grossly negligent act was the direct cause of Alf’s death. According to the court in the case of R v Franklin1, in order for the act to be considered as involuntary manslaughter, the act must be reckless and it must have a potential of harming another. Based on the decision of the court in the case of DPP v Newbury2, the person performing the act need not be aware that the act is dangerous in order for the person to be held liable for involuntary manslaughter in the event where the said act resulted in the death of another. b. Liability of Kathryn By virtue of her job, Kathryn had the duty to take the message correctly and act on it accordingly. Unfortunately, Kathryn failed to take the message of Tom properly which sent the ambulance in the wrong direction. According to the court in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson3, one must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that may cause harm on another person. The relationship between the parties is very important to establish criminal liability against each other. In establishing the “Neighbor test” in this case, Lord Atkins said that whoever will be directly affected by the acts of a person shall be considered as a neighbor of that person. The decision on the court in the case of Caparo v Dickman4 reinforced the idea that a person who is affected by the act of another may hold the other as liable for the injuries or loss that he or she may suffer. In defining when a person may be liable for tort of negligence as against the other, the court said in the case of Caparo v Dickman5 that there must be a harm foreseen, there is a sufficiently proximate relationship between the people involved and the imposition of a duty of care is just and equitable. Should Kathryn be held liable for the death of Alf? The cause of Alf’s death is extensive head trauma and if it can be shown that he would have died anyway even if the ambulance got to him or time, Kathryn may not be held liable for his death. The key here is the actual cause of death of the victim and if Kathryn did not contribute to the actual cause of the death of the victim, then she cannot be held liable for such death. However, she cannot be exonerated from her negligent act. According to the court in the case of Nettleship v Weston6, a professional is expected to exhibit a standard of care required of his or her profession. Since Kathryn is trained to handle emergency calls, she is expected to exhibit professionalism. As it is, she should have confirmed the address with the caller before dispatching the ambulance. c. Liability of Karen There are two incidents in our case that involve Karen, first, she was sent to attend to Alf and second, she responded to the call of Zola regarding the wounds suffered by Peter. In the first instance, Karen was given wrong directions to the house of Alf and Beryl which caused her to arrive 20 minutes late. If Karen can prove that she exercised due diligence in following the directions given by the dispatcher, she cannot be held liable for negligence of duty. According to the court in the case of Caparo v Dickman7, where the duty of care exist and the person who is bound to exercise such duty fulfilled the same, that person cannot held liable for injuries and loss suffered by the other. In the case of Karen, she was merely following the directions given to her and she could not have known at that time that the address given to her was wrong. When it comes to the second incident, Karen requested Tom to come to the hospital with her but Tom refused her request. As an ambulance driver, Karen has the duty to take the injured to the hospital and she must exercise such duty with due diligence. If she did not exhaust all reasonable means to bring Tom to the hospital and have his wounds treated, she can be held liable for negligence of duty. However, she may not be held criminally liable for the death of Tom as the proximate cause of his death can be considered as suicide by willfully refusing treatment. According to the court in the case of R v Dear8, where the person significantly contributed to his or her demise through willful neglect, the professionals attending to him or her. d. Liability of Tom Like Karen, there are two instance involving Tom in our case, first, he helped Beryl call 999 and second, he slashed Peter’s arm with a knife. In the first instance, Tom’s action of helping Beryl call 999 is commendable but if he gave the wrong address to the house where Beryl and Alf lived, he may be held liable for negligence. Note that when Tom responded to Beryl’s call for help and called 999, he voluntarily assumed responsibility over the situation, thus, he now has a duty of care towards Alf. In the even where he did not perform his duty well by giving the wrong directions to the house, then he can be held liable for negligence. As stated by the court in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson9, when the acts or omission of one person causes injuries or loss on another, that person may be held liable for such injuries or loss. On the other hand, if Tom dutifully gave the right directions to the house of Beryl and Alf but the dispatcher did not hear him right, then, Tom cannot be held liable for negligence. On the second incident involving Peter, Tom inflicted wound on the arm of Peter, thus, he can be held liable for battery under Section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1837. According to this provision, any person who unlawfully wounds another with or without the use of a weapon can be held criminally liable for his or her actions and may be sentenced to imprisonment of not more than 5 years. Although Peter died two days after Tom inflicted a wound on his arm, Tom may not be held liable for Manslaughter under the Homicide Act 1957 because there was a supervening event which created a break in the causation. According to the facts of our case, Peter stole the money of Tom and during an argument; Tom slashed the arm of Peter with a knife. The wound which was originally inflicted by Tom was not serious but Peter continued to open the wound because he was so ashamed of what he had done and wanted to “end it all.” According to the court in the case of R v Smith10, a break in the causation effectively stops the flow of events and put an end to the liability of the person who initially caused the harm. When Peter willfully opened the wound using a knife, he inflicted more harm upon himself and by doing so; he effectively created a break in the causation. The case of Tom and Peter should be distinguished from the case of R v Dear 11 where the victim died two days later after he was stabled by accused with a Stanley knife. Note that in the case of R v Dear 12, the wound which was inflicted by the accused was serious and even if the victim did committed self neglect by opening the wound or failing to have the would properly treated, the court ruled that since the would inflicted by the accused was serious and it caused the untimely demise of the victim, there was no break in the causation even if the victim was negligent. Although the contributory negligence of the victim may be taken into consideration, the most important element here is the severity of the wound inflicted upon the victim13. In the case of Tom, the wound he inflicted upon Peter was not fatal and it was Peter who opened the wound in an attempt to “end it all.” Since the original would inflicted upon him was not fatal, the act of Peter constituted a novus actus interveniens or a break in the causation which can exonerate Tom from liability of his death. Even if Tom cannot be held liable for the death of Peter, he can still be prosecuted for battery. According to the court in the case of R v. Notman14, battery may be committed by a person using of a weapon to unlawfully and maliciously inflict harm upon another. In deciding the case of R v Mowatt15, the court said that it is enough that the accused intend its action to reckless to impute criminal liability. The most important element here is that there was an unlawful act and that act caused harm on the other person. Since Tom acted recklessly in this case and inflicted a wound on the arm of Peter during an argument, he can be held liable for battery. Note that even if Peter did steal his money, Tom has no right to inflict any bodily harm upon Peter, thus, his actions can be considered as unlawful and malicious. As it is, Tom many be charged with battery and may face a sentence of imprisonment of up to 5 years following the provisions of Section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1837. e. Liability of Bruno Bruno is a professional plumber and he is presumably an expert in his field. As it is, he ought to know the dangers that are involved with leaking pipes and he should have made certain precautions to prevent accidents. Even if Bruno is just new to his job and he cannot be considered as an expert in the truest sense of the word, he is still bound to exhibit professionalism in his trade as defined by the court in the case Nettleship v Weston16. Note that in this case, the court specifically said that even if the person is still an apprentice or a novice in his or her field, he or she is not excused from exercising utmost professionalism in his or her work. Based on the facts of our case, Bruno started to take the boiler apart and when he realized a broken part need replacement, he left the house of Mandy to get the part without taking precautions to prevent gas leakage related accidents. According to the court in the case of R v Miller17, anybody who puts another person in a dangerous situation and does not rectify such situation in a timely manner may be held as criminally liable for in the event an accident happens. In the case of Bruno, he did not check the loose gas pipe before he left the house of Mandy so gas escaped and caused an explosion which killed Mandy and her next door neighbor, Gerald. Since it was the negligence of Bruno which lead to the untimely demise of Mandy and Gerald, Bruno may be held liable for involuntary manslaughter under the Homicide Act 1957. As stated by the court in the case of R v Bateman18, where the gross negligence of the accused cause the deaths of the victims, the accused can held liable for involuntary manslaughter. References: Laws 1. Homicide Act 1957 2. Offences Against the Person Act 1861 Cases 1. Caparo v Dickman (1989) 2 WLR 316 2. Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562 3. DPP v Newbury [1977] AC 500 4. Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 QB 691 5. R v Bateman 1925 Cr. App. R. 8 6. R v Dear (1996) CLR 595 7. R v Franklin (1883) 15 Cox CC 163 8. R v Miller [1982] UKHL 6 9. R v Mowatt [1967] 3 All ER 47 10. R v Smith,(1959) 2 QB 35 11. R v. Notman [1994] Crim LR 518 Read More