A Crime in Violation - Case Study Example

Criminal law: The liability of the Boris, Colin and Dr. Dan differ in our case. To help us understand the liabilities of these three persons, let us take their situations one by one. a. The case of Boris In our case, Boris committed a crime in violation of the sections 47 and 20 of the Offences Against the Persons Act. Under Section 20 of the Offences Against the Persons Act, a person is considered as guilty of battery when he shall “unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapons or instrument…” In the case of DPP v Smith [1961]1, the court ruled that to qualify as a violation of section 20 of the Offences Against the Persons Act, the act committed must inflict serious bodily harm on the part of the victim. The act need not be directly inflicted upon the victim [R v Ireland and Burstow (1997)2 however, there is a need for the victim to show a break in the skin to prove that there have been grievous bodily harm committed upon his person [C (a minor) v Eisenhower (1984)3. Our English law so provide that even a needle prick that produces a break in skin and draws blood is considered as serious harm on the part of the victim [Elliot, C. and Quinn, 2000). In the case of Boris, he used his car to inflict harm on PC Ali. Here, we have a continuing act which caused the bodily harm. The actus reus starts with the refusal to heed to the command of an officer to get out of the car, increasing speed when the officer was on the bonnet of the car and causing serious bodily harm on the victim when the victim fell off the bonnet of the car. PC Ali was seriously wounded as a result of the fall. Note that even though the act of PC Ali in jumping on the bonnet of the car in an attempt to stop Boris from escaping, the harm caused of on his person is a result of an unlawful act on the part of Boris. Since Boris could have prevented the injuries from happening by simply stopping the car as directed by PC Ali, the element of malice is present. Given the fact that Boris is already wanted for a serious crime by the police long before the incident with PC Ali, Boris can be said to have a guilty mind. The mens rea of this case therefore is the intent to evade apprehension by the police. Note that when PC Ali knocked on the window of the car, the immediate reaction of Boris was to take flight. The reaction of Boris can be closely linked to his guilty as he is already wanted by the police for the commission of some serious crimes. According to the facts of this case, the accused could not have committed homicide or murder because there have been some intervening events which caused a break in the flow of the act before death took place. Note that after Boris took off in the car and caused serious injuries on the part of PC Ali, PC was taken to the hospital where he was made to wait for six hours before he was treated. According to the case of R v Malcherek and Steel (1981)4, the court said that acts that were not reasonably foreseeable could break the chain of the act. The fact that the doctors were not able to attend to the victim immediately is an enforceable act that aggravated the situation. Furthermore, since the doctor committed a mistake in administering blood transfusion, another element to the case is added thereby effective breaking the chain of actions. Three days after the blood transfusion, PC Ali felt very uncomfortable and ended up killing himself. Given the time lapse between the incident with Boris and the time and the manner of the death of the victim, the elements of continuity is broken. PC Ali did not die as a direct result of the grievous assault on his person but rather, he died because of the would that he inflicted upon himself. On the other hand, the contention of Boris that he is suffering from personality disorder from an early age and that he found the acts of PC Ali as a form aggression and that he just wanted to give PC Ali a fright is of no moment. Note that where the force used to defend oneself is excessive, such defence will not hold in Court. The degree of the force used to protect oneself against harm should be measured in accordance to the harm that is being avoided. In the case of Boris, PC Ali was an officer of law and merely knocked on the window of the car of Boris. The act of knocking on the window of the car of the accused is not illegal nor is it an act of aggression. There is no necessity to defend oneself in this case because there was no act of blatant aggression. In the case of Regina V Ahluwalia [1992]5, Lord Taylor expressed that the “English cases concerned with the “reasonable man” element of provocation…” and that such elements of provocation already included the “physical and mental abnormalities of the person involved”. Given this circumstances, the case of Boris does not fall within the ambit of the English law as his act was unreasonable and illegal per se. b. The case of Colin Colin is an off-duty police office who saw PC Ali lying on the pavement badly hurt. The fact that Colin did not help PC Ali made him liable for the tort of negligence. Note that negligence can be committed in the commission of an act or in the omission of an act. Where a person is obliged to perform an act and failed to do so to the detriment of another person, he or she can be held liable for the tort of negligence. In case of Donoghoe v Stevenson [1932]6, the court ruled that one “must take a reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which can you reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour…” According the neighbor theory which was established under this case, the person who will most likely to be affected by your act or your omission is considered as your neighbor. In the case of Colin, the fact that he saw a fallen person on the street and that he has the power to help that person created a sense of connection between him and that person. In our case, Colin who is an off-duty police office now has the obligation to help PC Ali in any way he can. Since Colin did not help PC Ali and proceeded to drive away to his destination. The actus reus in the case of Colin is the failure to help PC Ali by calling an ambulance and staying with the victim until such time when the ambulance arrives. However, the criminal intent on the part of Colin may not be proven. There was no showing in this case that Colin has the motivation to harm PC Ali. Since his act of leaving PC Ali on the pavement did not directly resulted to the death of PC Ali, he could not really be successfully prosecuted for the death of PC Ali. Note that there were sufficient supervening events which occurred from the time that Colin left PC Ali on the pavement. PC Ali died 3 days after the incident not directly from the injuries that he sustained during the incident with Boris but rather through the medical negligence of the attending physician. Will the defense that Colin is off duty viable? The duty to help an injured person does not lie only to people in authority or those who are in active duty. As illustrated in the case of Donoghoe v Stevenson (1932)7, a person can become a neighbor when he or she will be closely affected the acts or omissions of another. Given this situation, Colin does not have a proper defence available to him. c. The case of Dr. Dan Dr. Dan can be prosecuted for medical negligence. As well established in the case of Donoghoe v Stevenson [1932]8, the duty of care exists when the person will be directly affected by acts of another. In the case at bar, Dr. Dan administered the treatment of PC Ali therefore it is incumbent upon him to provide good service to his patient. According to the case of Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957)9, where the healthcare profession failed to perform acts which are expected of his or her profession, he or she shall be deemed in breach of such duty of care. In the more recent case of Bolitho v City & Hackney Health Authority (1997)10, the Court ruled that the delivery of the duties and responsibilities of the healthcare professional should be able to stand of up to logical analysis, where the act should be examined in the context where it would be the rightful thing to do on such a given circumstance. In our case, Dr. Dan gave PC Ali the wrong type of blood which aggravated his medical condition and caused him some great discomforts. As a doctor, Dr. Dan is expected to give the right kind of treatment to his patient. According to the case of Barnett v. Kensington and Chelsea Hospital Management Committee (1969)11, the liability of the healthcare professional is established where the damaged that the patient could suffer due to the negligence is foreseeable and is the direct result of the breach of duty of care. As a doctor, Dr. Dan should know that his negligent act will have grave consequences on the health of his patient. He knows fully well as to what will happen to a patient if he or she is given the wrong type of blood. Furthermore, three days have passed after the blood may have been infused to the patient and since the patient is suffering from extreme discomforts, as a doctor, Dr. Dan should have investigated on the cause of the discomfort. With is expertise in diagnosing symptoms in patients, he is in the right position to discover what was wrong with his patient. The discomfort suffered by the patient in this case resulted in part from the wrong type of blood infused as well as his existing injuries. However, as stated in the case, the administration of the wrong type of blood was the primary reason why the patient suffered tremendously that he decided to kill himself with a scalpel. Can Dr. Dan be help liable for the death of his patient? In this case, the proximate cause of the death of the patient is the negligence of Dr. Dan. Had Dr. Dan administered the right type of blood on the patient, the patient will probably not go through such discomforts. The contention of Dr. Dan that he was overworked cannot be considered as meritorious. As a doctor, he is expected to perform his job in accordance with the standards of his profession. Good faith cannot also be relied on in the case of Dr. Dan because as a doctor, he is expected to exercise proper care in the performance of his duties. The type of the blood of a person can be easily determined through the reports of the laboratory test of the hospital. He cannot rely on good faith as an excuse for his failure to perform his duty. Total Word count for essay: 1,943 Bibliography Laws and Cases: 1. Barnett v Kensington & Chelsea Hospital Management Committee (1969) 1 QB 428 2. Bolam v. Frierm Hospital Management Committee (1957) 1 WLR 582 3. Bolitho v City & Hackney Health Authority (1997) All ER 770 4. C (a minor) v Eisenhower (1984) QB 331 5. Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) AC 562 6. DPP v Smith [1961] AC 290 7. Offences Against the Persons Act 8. R v Ireland and Burstow (1997) QB 114 9. R v Malcherek and Steel (1981) 1 WLR 690 10. 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