Analysis of the Criminal Law - Case Study Example

162440   In order to be able to assess the liability of each of the parties in this particular situation it is necessary to look at causation and discuss whether that chain of causation has been broken by intervening events. To do this it is important to look at the intention of Boris when he drove the car with PC Ali clinging to the bonnet. It would appear in this instance that Boris was not intending to harm PC Ali but was merely attempting to evade arrest1. In his attempt to do this PC Ali was injured2. There are several similar cases where police officers have been injured in this manner whilst defendants are attempting to escape. In R. v Boswell3 the defendant was found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving whilst trying to evade been arrested. Boris could attempt to argue that PC Ali’s action of jumping on the bonnet amount to contributory negligence as he has put himself in danger by doing this4. Boris may also be able to use the defence of his personality disorder to reduce or extinguish the charges5 or provocation caused by PC Ali’s actions6. To be able to decide on the liability of Boris it is necessary to examine the mens rea of Boris at the time. He has stated that his intention was merely to frighten PC Ali and not injure or kill him7. In R v Mann8 the courts reduced the sentence imposed after finding that it was not the intention of the defendant to harm the victim but just to frighten him. In looking at Boris’s intention when he drove the car in this manner it is important to note that he was attempting to escape the area to avoid being arrested. A similar case that might assist the courts in reaching their decision is R v Fitzgerald9. In this case the defendant drove off in an attempt to escape police. The police officer tried stopping the defendant by clinging on to the front of the car. The defendant drove for some distance with the officer still clinging to the front of the car. Unable to control the vehicle properly the defendant crashed the car and was subsequently arrested. No one sustained any serious injury as a result but the defendant was charged with assaulting a police officer and attempting to resist arrest. Another case which had similar facts to the aforementioned one is Ferguson v HM Advocate10. In this case the defendant fled from police whilst an officer was clinging to the door. The defendant was charged with assaulting the officer and resisting arrest. The courts made no finding of contributory negligence on the part of the officers concerned in either of these cases stating that the officers were performing their duties at the time by attempting to prevent the escape of a wanted person. A further case that might assist the court in deciding the liability of Boris is R v Huntroyd11. This case involved the defendant driving his car at the police officer who jumped onto the roof of the vehicle to avoid being hit by the car. For some considerable time the officer clung to the roof. Eventually he was thrown from the vehicle and sustained a variety of injuries. The court found the defendant guilty of attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent and sentenced him to 9 years. This case seems to suggest that Boris might face a similar charge as he drove the vehicle in a manner intended to throw the officer off the vehicle. The case of R v Parfitt12 would also see to suggest that Boris might well be found liable for the officer’s death. In Parfitt the defendant was found guilty of manslaughter after he threw an officer who was clinging to his car from the vehicle killing him. Boris would have to rely on proving that the chain of causation had been broken by intervening events in order to avoid liability for PC Ali’s death. To establish this it is necessary to consider whether any liability can be placed on Colin or Dr Pan. Starting with Colin it is necessary to consider whether those who come upon a scene but are not directly involved with the accident have a duty to offer assistance13. A further consideration is whether the fact that Colin is an off duty police officer effects this liability. The first thing to note in this case is that Colin did not actually hit PC Ali as he was able to stop in time. Effectively this would mean that Colin cannot be held liable for any of the officer’s injuries as he did not come into direct contact with him. If Colin had not been able to stop he may well be liable for some of the injuries of PC Ali. In this instance liability might only arise on respect of Colin’s failure to assist PC Ali. In the UK there is no legal obligation on an individual to assist a person in need of treatment unless that person was the cause of the injuries. There is no legal liability for an omission to act where the person concerned is not responsible for the injuries of the victim. In Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commission [1969]14 the courts held it was an omission when the driver under police instruction was told to park his car close to the kerb and drove his car onto the officer’s foot. The defendant argued he lacked the mens rea for the offence at the time the act was committed, despite having the mens rea afterwards as he refused to remove the vehicle. He argued this was an omission and not a deliberate act. The court dismissed the appeal on the basis that the driving onto the officers’ foot and staying there was part of a continuous act rather than an act followed by an omission. They held that so long as he had the mens rea for the act at some point he was liable. As Colin had no involvement in this incident then he should not be held liable for omitting to act. There are a number of relationships within the UK where a positive duty to protect another might exist. The law recognises parents15 or teachers as falling within the category of those that have a duty to protect as they are responsible for the children in their care. Similar liability is placed on members of the medical profession who are caring for patients within the hospital16. There is no legal requirement for doctors and nurses to offer such assistance to someone who is injured in the street unless they were directly responsible for that person’s injuries. Police officers also have a duty to assist but this only applies when they are acting in performance of their duties and does not place liability on them when they are off duty. PC John Hurst attempted to place such liability on all individual to assist others by using the interpretation of s27 of Halsbury’s Laws of England. He felt that this section implied such a duty as it states “The individual is under certain common-law duties to serve the public. It was his considered opinion that such an interpretation would mean that failure to assist could be classed as a criminal offence. At present the criminal justice system does not agree with PC Hurst’s and no such duty is imposed. It is fair to say that in this situation Colin is unlikely to face any liability in respect of PC Ali’s injuries. Given that Colin cannot be held liable Boris would have to hope that the courts would find that the actions of Dr Pan broke the chain of causation. When considering the doctor’s liability, the courts will examine whether the doctor’s actions where those of a competent doctor, or whether he was grossly negligent in the performance of his duties17. The liability of Dr Pan may be affected by the courts decision in respect of Boris. If the chain of causation has not been broken by intervening events then Boris could find himself facing charges for PC Ali’s death18. The starting point is to examine whether Dr Pan was negligent in his treatment of PC Ali. From the information given it would appear that the doctor has acted negligently19. The pain experienced by PC Ali is directly related to Dr Pan administering the wrong blood. Cases that might assist the court include Horton v Evans20. In this case the doctor was found guilty of gross negligence after administering the wrong dosage of medication to the patient which caused her to have a heart attack and die. Similarly in Public Prosecutor v Allain21 the defendant was found guilty for failing to check to ensure the blood he gave to the victim was not infected. It transpired that the blood was infected with the HIV virus and the doctor was found guilty of gross negligence. Using both of these cases as authorities it would seem possible that the court may well decide that the doctor was grossly negligent and should be held responsible for PC Ali’s death. As mentioned above if the doctor can show that the chain of causation has not been broken then he could avoid all liability and Boris would face charges for PC Ali’s death. There are several cases where the courts have had to consider whether the chain of causation has been broken or not. In R v Mellor22 the court found the defendant guilty of murder after the victim died two weeks after being attacked. The cause of death was bronchopneumonia which was caused by the negligence of the hospital23. Despite the fact that had the medical staff given him oxygen on the day of his death he might not have died the court found that the chain of causation had not been broken and the defendant was liable for the death. By contrast in R v Jordan24 the court held that the injuries inflicted by the defendant were no longer an operative cause of death and that the defendant’s conviction for murder should be quashed. Boris could attempt to argue that PC Ali would have survived had it not been for the actions of Dr Pan. In R v Smith25 the defendant argued that the intervening events where the operative cause in the death of the victim26. The court did not agree and the defendant’s conviction was upheld. Boris might be able to establish that the actions of the doctor constituted a second injury. In R v Dyos27 the court found the defendant not guilty as they could not establish that both wounds had bee caused by the defendant. The above cases appear to suggest that the court could decide either way in respect of liability for Boris. Some of the cases suggest that the chain of causation might have been broken whilst others hint that there might have been such a break but are not prepared to negate the liability of the defendant. The final point to consider is the fact that PC Ali ended his own life28. This action could absolve all parties of liability. To decide on whether PC Ali’s actions can negate the liability of the others it is necessary to examine cases where the victims have taken their own lives as a direct result of an injury against them29. In R v Anderson30 the victim of a rape found the humiliation too much to bear and ended her own life. The defendant was held liable for the suicide of the victim as the court held there was a causal link between the rape and the victim’s suicide. PC Ali’s family could argue that the hospital staff was negligent in leaving the scalpel in reach. They would have to show that the staff ought to have realised that he might do something like this31. The hospital could counter this by adducing evidence to show that PC Ali showed no signs of having suicidal thoughts or tendencies. PC Ali’s relations could argue in the alternative that PC Ali would not have killed himself if the doctor had not put him in so much pain through the giving of the wrong blood transfusion. If the courts are satisfied that the chain of causation has not been broken and that Boris should be held liable Boris could use the defences as mentioned above. Provocation is defined in s3 of the Homicide Act 1957 which states Where on a charge of murder there is evidence on which the jury can find that the person charged was provoked (whether by things done or things said or both together32) to lose his self-control, the question whether the provocation33 was enough to make a reasonable man34 do as he did shall be left to be determined by the jury, and in determining that question the jury shall take into account everything both done and said according to the effect which in their opinion it would have on a reasonable man. In this case Boris would have to prove that PC Ali jumping on his car was provocative and that a reasonable man faced with the same situation would react in the same manner. If he is intending to rely on his medical condition as a defence he would need expert medical opinion35 to prove that his disorder is such that such actions may be likely given the unstable nature of the defendant’s mental capacity. The conclusion in this case is that Boris may well be held liable for the death of PC Ali if the chain of causation is deemed not to be broken. Colin is free of any liability as he is under no obligation to attend to his injured colleague as he is off duty at the time of the incident. If Colin had been on duty he would have had a responsibility to assist. Dr Pan may well face charges for gross negligence unless he can prove that his actions were triggered in response to the injuries caused by Boris. The giving of the wrong blood effectively places this defence in jeopardy. The subsequent suicide of PC Ali could have the effect of nullifying the liability of all parties, unless the courts are satisfied that there had been no break in the chain of causation. There could also be a claim as mentioned above based on the fact that PC Ali was able to get hold of the scalpel without anyone knowing. Bibliography Ashworth, A, Principles of Criminal Law, 2003 2nd Ed, Oxford University Press Coke’s Institutes, 3 Co Inst 47 Cook, K, James, M, and Lee, R, Core Statutes on Criminal Law, 2006-2007, Law Matters Publishing Elliott, C & Quinn, F, Criminal Law, 3rd Ed, 2000, Pearson Education Glanville Williams, Textbook of Criminal Law, 2nd Ed, 1983, London: Stevens & Sons Glazebrook, P R, Statutes on Criminal Law, 10th Ed, 2001, Blackstone Press Limited Herring, J, Criminal Law, 4th Ed, 2005, Palgrave Macmillan Law Masters Inns of Court School of Law, Criminal Litigation & Sentencing, 2003, Oxford University Press Murphy, P, Blackstone’s Criminal Practice, 2002, Oxford University Press (Ormerod) Smith & Hogan, Criminal Law, 2005 11th Ed, Oxford University Press Smith, J.C. and Hogan, B, Criminal Law, 7th Ed, 2002, London: Butterworths Table of Cases Attorney General of Ontario v Keller (1978) 86 D.L.R. (3d) 426 1978 Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 Q.B. 428 [1968] 2 W.L.R. 422 [1968] 1 All E.R. 1068 (1967) 111 S.J. 912 Bland v Morris [2005] EWHC 71 Davis v Schrogin [2006] EWCA Civ 974 (2006) 150 S.J.L.B. 891 Ferguson v HM Advocate (Sentencing) 1995 S.C.C.R. 241 Horton v Evans [2006] EWHC 2808 Kent v Griffiths (No.3) [2001] Q.B. 36 [2000] 2 W.L.R. 1158 [2000] 2 All E.R. 474 [2000] P.I.Q.R. P57 [2000] Lloyds Rep. Med. 109 (2000) 97(7) L.S.G. 41 (2000) 150 N.L.J. 195 (2000) 144 S.J.L.B. 106 Times, February 10, 2000 Independent, February 9, 2000 Pretty v United Kingdom (2346/02) [2002] 2 F.L.R. 45 Public Prosecutor v Allain [2004] E.C.C. 40 R. (on the application of Corner) v Southend Crown Court [2005] EWHC 2334 (2006) 170 J.P. 6 (2006) 170 J.P.N. 34 R. (on the application of Tudor) v General Medical Council [2004] EWHC 2409 R. v Al-Khawaja [2005] EWCA Crim 2697 [2006] 1 W.L.R. 1078 [2006] 1 All E.R. 543 [2006] 1 Cr. App. R. 9 Times, November 15, 2005 Independent, November 9, 2005 R. v Anderson [2005] EWCA Crim 3523 R. v Boswell [1984] 1 W.L.R. 1047 [1984] 3 All E.R. 353 (1984) 79 Cr. App. R. 277 (1984) 6 Cr. App. R. (S.) 257 [1984] R.T.R. 315 (1984) 81 L.S.G. 2618 (1984) 128 S.J. 566 R. v Bushell [2005] EWCA Crim 688 R. v Cheshire (David William) [1991] 1 W.L.R. 844 [1991] 3 All E.R. 670 (1991) 93 Cr. App. R. 251 (1991) 141 N.L.J. 743 (1991) 135 S.J. 11 Times, April 24, 1991 Guardian, April 30, 1991 Daily Telegraph, April 29, 1991 R. v Davies [1996] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 28 R v Dyos[1979]Crim LR660 R. v Fitter (1983) 5 Cr. App. R. (S.) 168 R. v Fitzgerald [2005] EWCA Crim 2301 [2006] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 86 R. v Gilmour [2000] N.I. 367 [2000] 2 Cr. App. R. 407 Times, June 21, 2000 R. v Hendy [2006] EWCA Crim 819 [2006] 2 Cr. App. R. 33 R. v HM Coroner for North Humberside and Scunthorpe Ex p. Jamieson [1995] Q.B. 1 [1994] 3 W.L.R. 82 [1994] 3 All E.R. 972 (1994) 158 J.P. 1011 [1994] 5 Med. L.R. 217 [1994] C.O.D. 455 Times, April 28, 1994 Independent, April 27, 1994 R. v Huntroyd [2004] EWCA Crim 2182 [2005] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 85 R v Malcherek, R v Steel[1981]1 WLR690 R. v Mann [2001] EWCA Crim 646 [2001] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 115 R. v Markham [2006] EWCA Crim 1503 R. v Martin [2001] EWCA Crim 2245 [2003] Q.B. 1 [2002] 2 W.L.R. 1 [2002] 1 Cr. App. R. 27 (2001) 98(46) L.S.G. 35 (2001) 145 S.J.L.B. 253 Times, November 1, 2001 R. v Misra (Amit) [2004] EWCA Crim 2375 [2005] 1 Cr. App. R. 21 (2004) 101(41) L.S.G. 35 (2004) 148 S.J.L.B. 1213 Times, October 13, 2004 R. v Parfitt [2004] EWCA Crim 1755 [2005] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 50 R. v Ripley [1997] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 19 R. v Robson [2006] EWCA Crim 2749 (2006) 150 S.J.L.B. 1531 R. v Smith [1959] 2 Q.B. 35 [1959] 2 W.L.R. 623 [1959] 2 All E.R. 193 (1959) 43 Cr. App. R. 121 (1959) 123 J.P. 295 (1959) 103 S.J. 353 R. v Southampton University Hospital NHS Trust [2006] EWCA Crim 2971 (2007) 93 B.M.L.R. 160 (2006) 150 S.J.L.B. 1533 Walsh v Gwynedd HA [1998] C.L.Y. 397 Watson v British Boxing Board of Control Ltd [2001] Q.B. 1134 [2001] 2 W.L.R. 1256 [2001] P.I.Q.R. P16 (2001) 98(12) L.S.G. 44 (2001) 145 S.J.L.B. 31 Times, February 2, 2001 Independent, January 11, 2001 Daily Telegraph, January 16, 2001 Willis v Nicolson [2007] EWCA Civ 199 Table of Statutes Homicide Act 1957 Read More