Describing Situations in English Criminal Law - Case Study Example

Criminal law: Under our English law, a person can be said to be guilty of a crime if he or she proven to have committed a voluntary physical act or has omitted to perform an action which he or she should do under the law. Moreover, the act of the person must pass the test of criminal liability as expressed by the Latin Maxim actus reus , "actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea" which when translated into English would mean that the person can only be considered guilty if his mind is also guilty (Brent Fisse, "Howards Criminal Law" (1990) 12-13). Under Section 8 Criminal Justice Act 1967, the statutory framework in determining the mens rea was established. Under this law, the jury is given wider latitude in determining the mens rea by giving it the ability to evaluate each given circumstances. In connection with the case at bar, let us therefore apply the principles of mens rea and the underlying laws that punishes criminal offenses. a. Liability of Alan The actus reus can be established here as negligent act of Alan in loading the gun and accidentally firing it at his father. To recall, the actus reus maybe be the acts R. v. Majoram [2000]1, omission (R v. Dytham [1979]2; R v. Pittwood (1902)3 or negligence (see R v Stone and Dobinson (1977)4 of the parties involved. The mens rea of the case is loading of the gun which caused the accidental shooting. According to the case of Metropolitan Police Commissioner v. Caldwell [1981]5, where the actor recognized the danger of the act but still persist to perform such act; the requirements of mens rea are satisfied. However, the fact Alan confessed later that he was hearing voices; he never really had any criminal intentions of killing his father mitigates the degree of the act. Alan as a soldier knows about guns. In fact, as a soldier, he had formal trainings when it comes to guns. In the case of R v Cunningham (1957)6, the court decided that where the accused can reasonably foresee the consequences of his or her actions but did not really care whether the consequences of his or her action will actually happen or not, that person is considered guilty of recklessness. Since Alan did not have any intentions of really injuring or killing his own father, the offense will now fall within the ambit of sections 47 and 20 of the Offences Against the Persons Act. Under section 20 of the Act, a person who “unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapons or instrument…” shall be guilty of battery. The use of the gun as a weapon here falls under the provisions of this act. Note that in the case of R v Ireland and Burstow (1997)7, the court ruled that where the victim is wounded or sustained breaks in the skin, the conditions for the commission of the crime under this act are deemed satisfied. The fact that Alan was intoxicated at the time of the commission of the crime is not a defense in itself. He maybe dazed from the alcohol but unless there is no clear showing that his mental capacity was infirmed by the effects of the alcohol, he cannot really claimed that he was not himself at the time the incident happened. In the case of R v Bateman (1925)8, the court said that "in order to establish criminal liability the facts must be such that, in the opinion of the jury, the negligence of the accuse…showed such disregard for the life and safety of others…" In the case at bar, although Alan did not really intend to harm his own father, as a soldier he knows the danger of using guns. As a soldier, he knows that putting bullets on his gun and aiming it at a target can have dangerous consequences whether intended or not intended. Given these facts, Alan can be held liable for the injuries he caused to his own father. Can Alan be held liable for the death of his father in the hospital a few days after the incident? No, he cannot be held liable for the death of his father. Note that from the time the shooting incident happened, several intervening incidents have happened. First, there was a delay of the arrival of the ambulance due to a freak storm, there had been a lapse of a few days from the time the incident happened and third, the death of Brian was not directly due to the wound that he suffered from. Note that the facts of the case so stated that he developed infection in the wound and the attending physician Dr. Chris gave him the wrong medicine which caused him allergies. These intervening incidents are enough to break the chain of acts committed by Alan. Yes, Alan caused the initial injury but the delay in the ambulance and the wrong medication given by the doctor are now considered as separate events that caused another type of harm on the part of Brian. According to the case of R v Malcherek and Steel (1981)9, in case of a break in the chain of events in the commission of an act or a crime, Alan may no longer be held liable for the death of his father. In a similar case of R v. Cheshire [1991]10 where the victim of a stabbing incident was brought to the hospital and was given by the doctors with antibiotics of which is he allergic to, thereby causing his death, the person who inflicted the wound was absolved of liability of the death of the victim. According to the court, the primary cause of the death is not the stab wound but rather from the complications caused by the wrong medication given to the victim. Given this scenario, the most that Alan can be held liable for is violation of sections 47 and 20 of the Offences Against the Persons Act. On the other hand, Alan can be held liable for the destruction of properties for destroying the vase. The offense here can fall under the ambit of tort negligence because Alan did not really have the intentions of destroying the vase. However, since the vase was destroyed, he can therefore he held liable for damages under the rules of tort. b. Liability of Dr. Chris The liability of Dr. Chris is this case is grave. Note that the actus reus of the case in the negligent act on the part of Dr. Chris is giving his patient the wrong medication. He can be prosecuted for tort of negligence in the practice of his profession which resulted into the death of his patient, Brian. In the case of Donoghoe v Stevenson [1932]11, the court so provided that one “must take a reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which can you reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour…” Accordingly, the person who is most likely to be affected of a certain act is considered as the neighbour of the person performing the act. As enunciated by the court in the case of Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856)12 Negligence can be defined as the omission on the part of a person to do something that is reasonable under the given circumstance. The failure of the person to do the act required of him will result to a liability on his part. In the case at bar, Dr. Chris has a duty to protect his patients from harm. The fact that he is a doctor and is trained to attend to the needs of his patients; he has the legal duty to make sure that he is giving his patients the right type of treatment. In the case of Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990)13, the court said that the duty towards the person exists when the other takes on such duty by virtue of his or her profession. In medical profession, this duty of case is well defined in the case of Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957)14. According to this case, the failure of the doctor on duty to do what is expected of him given his training and his profession is inexcusable and such failure should be punished under the law. According to the court in the case of Bolitho v City & Hackney Health Authority (1997)15, for the actions of the physician on duty to be considered as appropriate such acts must be able to stand of up to logical analysis. In essence, the actions of Dr. Chris must be examined in accordance to the context of his profession and the kind of professional training that he has. For his actions towards his patient to be considered as appropriate at the time the incident occurred, he must show that what he did for his patient is the standard operating procedure under his profession and that he acted with good reason based on his training and expertise. In the case at bar, there was no clear showing that Dr. Chris indeed performed such things. We must understand that doctors need to know the probable reaction of their patients to certain drugs and to do this, they must perform routine test and go into the medical history of the patient to determine if the patient is allergic to certain types of drugs. Had Dr. Chris followed these procedures, he would have noticed that the patient did have some adverse reactions to certain types of antibiotics. Clearly, he committed an act of negligence in the sense that he did not perform the test. According to the case of Barnett v. Kensington and Chelsea Hospital Management Committee (1969)16, Dr. Chris can be held liability for the damages suffered by the patient is if he could have prevented that damage had he performed his duties with due diligence. As in the case of R v Cheshire (1991)17 and in the case of R v Jordan (1956)18, the giving of the wrong type of medicine was considered as punishable under the law. Doctors should be more careful when administering drugs or any types of medications to their patients to avoid causing harm. The fact that doctor was tired or was suffering from some types of illness at the time of the incident is not an excuse for him to negate his duties to his patient. The medical profession is all about saving lives and not causing harm on people. Is Dr. Chris liable for the death of Brian? If we take a closer look at the case at bar, Brian did not really die as a direct consequence of poisoning from the medications given by Dr. Chris. The cause of Brians death was actually his fall from the second floor of the hospital. The wrong medication given to him caused discomforts but apparently, such discomfort was not enough to kill him. Note that the patient was said to be delirious and close to death but there was no clear showing that he would have died anyway had he not jumped out of the window. Besides, since there was no clear intentions on the part of Dr Chris to cause harm on the patient and that he did not deliberate cause the patient to jump out of the window, he cannot really be held liable for the death of the patient at this point. The most that he could be held liable for at this point would be medical negligence. The death of the patient is simply too circumstantial to be attributed to the giving of the wrong medicine. Total Word count for essay: 1,958 Bibliography Laws and Cases: 1. Barnett v Kensington & Chelsea Hospital Management Committee (1969) 1 QB 428 2. Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856) 11 Ex 781 3. Bolam v. Frierm Hospital Management Committee (1957) 1 WLR 582 4. Bolitho v City & Hackney Health Authority (1997) All ER 770 5. Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990) 2 A.C. 605 6. Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) AC 562 7. Offences Against the Persons Act 8. R v Anthony Martin (2001) The Times November 1st 2001 9. R v Bateman (1925) 28 Coxs Crim Cas 33 10. R v Cunningham (1957) 2 All ER 863 11. R v Dytham (1979) QB 722 12. R v Ireland and Burstow (1997) QB 114 13. R v Ireland and Burstow (1997) QB 114 14. R v Malcherek and Steel (1981) 1 WLR 690 15. R v Stone and Dobinson (1977) QB 354 16. R v William (1997) 3 All ER 411 CA 17. R v. Cheshire [1991] 3 All ER 670 18. R v. Dytham [1979] QB 722 19. R v. Pittwood (1902) 19 TLR 37 20. R. v. Majoram [2000] Crim LR 372 21. Regina V Ahluwalia [1992] 4 All E.R. 889, 898 Books 1. Elliot, C. and Quinn, F. (2000) Criminal Law 4th ed. Longman 2. Hedley,S.,(2000), Tort, 2nd ed., Butterworths Tolley 3. Owen, R., (2000), Essential Tort Law, 3rd ed., Cavendish Publishing Ltd 4. Pickering J (2000) The process of the Law In Drury M (ed) Clinical negligence in General Practice Read More