People Who are Considered Guilty of a Crime - Case Study Example

Criminal law: Under our English law, to be considered guilty of a crime, a person must be proven to have committed a voluntary physical act or has failed to perform an act which he or she is legally bound to perform under the law. In other words, there is a crime committed through a direct act of the perpetrator and there is a crime of omission when the person failed to perform a lawful act. In the case of Boris, Colin and Dr. Dan, all three of them are criminally liable in connection with PC Ali. However, since the three of them did not perform a concerted act but rather of three different, specific acts, each other will be liable accordingly. To help us understand the liability of these people, let us discuss their situation one by one. a. Liability of Boris Boris is a person who is wanted by the police. Boris tried to evade capture by driving his car away from PC Ali causing the later some serious physical injuries when he fell from the bonnet of the car. Given the facts of the case, Boris has committed a violation of the sections 47 and 20 of the Offences Against the Persons Act . As stated in 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. As ruled by the Court in the case of R v Ireland and Burstow (1997)1 where the victim sustained breaks in the skin, he or she is said to sustain grievous bodily harm. In the case at bar, PC Ali was seriously wounded because of his fall from the bonnet of Boris’ car. According to Elliot, C. and Quinn (2000), the bodily harm done on the victim is considered grievous even if it is needle prick as long as a break in the skin occurs as evidenced by the flow of blood from the wound. The defense of Boris that he is mentally disturbed and is suffering from mental disorders which made him consider the act of PC Ali as aggressive is untenable. Note that PC Ali is an officer of the law and Boris knows that. Note that the incident happened when PC Ali was on duty and PC Ali merely knocked on the window of Boris to ask him to get out of the car. An officer on duty can lawfully ask a person to get out of the car if he has reasons to believe that the person inside the car has committed a crime. Since PC Ali was performing a lawful act, Boris could not use the defense of aggression. Besides, if one is to take the defense of aggression, one must prove that the force applied to repel an aggression is commensurate to the harm that is intending to prevent. Note that in the case of R v Anthony Martin (2001)2 the test for the force that will be applied to prevent a wrong is very much objective and does not make any excuses or allowances. The belief of the accused that he or she is using a reasonable force to repel an aggression is not the gauge in determining if the force applied is indeed reasonable. The fact the Boris drove his car to escape from PC Ali cannot be justified by his claim that he is mentally disturbed. Was Boris reasonable provoked by the act of PC Ali of knocking on his windows? According to the case of Regina V Ahluwalia [1992]3, the “reasonable man” element of provocation…” already took into consideration the mental and physical state of the person when he or she attacked his or her victim and the case of Boris does not comply with the set of requirements for sufficient provocation. Note that when we talk of sufficient provocation, the aggressor must show strong signs of aggression that causes a strong sense of passion and obfuscation on the part of the other person either to defend himself or another person (R v Williams (1987)4 . If we take a look at the case of Boris, the only reason that he would feel threatened by the act of PC Ali in knocking on his window is that fact that he feared that he will be arrested. Since the reason for his flight in rooted in guilt, his action is therefore cannot be justified. Can Boris be held liable for the death of PC Ali in the hospital three days after the incident? According to the case of R v Malcherek and Steel (1981)5, where there has been a break in the chair of the acts committed, the person could no longer be help as directly liable for the death of the victim. In the case at bar, PC Ali was brought to the hospital after the incident where he was made to wait for at least 6 hours for treatment. The fact that he was not given immediate medical attention is an unforeseeable event which could break the flow of events. Another factor that broke the chain of events is that Dr. Dan the attending physician made a mistake in giving the patient blood transfusion. Note that Dr. Dan gave the patient the wrong type of blood which caused him severed discomforts. Because the patient was in so much pain due to the wrong blood in his system, he committed suicide using a scalpel. Given the supervening circumstances that happened after the incident, Boris could no longer be blamed for the subsequent death of PC Ali in the hospital. The liability for the death of PC Ali has now shifted to another person. The most that Boris could be held in this case is battery under sections 47 and 20 of the Offences Against the Persons Act. b. Liability of Colin In the case at bar, Colin can be held liable for the tort of negligence. As a civilian who saw a person who is need of help and failed to perform to do a lawful act in helping the victim, he committed the tort of negligence. According to the case of Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856)6 "Negligence is the omission” on the part of a person so perform something that is considered as reasonable based on the reasonable conduct of human affairs. The failure of the person to perform a reasonable act to save a life as in the case of Colin would result to a offense. In case of Donoghoe v Stevenson [1932]7, 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…” The neighbor theory so provides that the person who will most likely to be affected by the act or omission of another is considered his or her neighbor. The fact that Colin has the power to help PC Ali made PC Ali his neighbor. This means that has now the duty care of care to help the victim (Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990)8. What Colin should have done to avoid criminal liability is to call an ambulance and stay with the victim until such time when the ambulance arrives. Can Colin use the defense that he is off-duty? No, Colin cannot use that defense that he is off duty as a police officer at that time because even as a civilian, he still has the duty of care over a person who is in need. Note that in the case Donoghoe v Stevenson (1932)9, the court did not make any distinctions as to whether the person involved in on-duty or off duty. It simply stated that where a person will be directly affected on ones ask that person becomes his or her neighbor. Will the liability of Colin be different had he been on duty at that time? In the case of R v Dytham (1979)10, an on-duty police officer saw a person who was beaten to death outside a nightclub but failed to give assistance to that person. He neither stopped the attack nor calls an ambulance later to help the victim get to the hospital. According to the court in this case, the officer who neglected to help a person in need has committed a willful misconduct in public office. If Colin had been on duty at that time when he saw PC Ali on the pavement, he will be guilty of willful misconduct in public office instead of tort of negligence. Can Colin be held liable for the death of PC Ali? Colin committed negligence but his negligence was not such that is can directly be attributed to the death of the victim. Note that PC Ali died in the hospital 3 days after not from the wounds that he suffered through the accident but through suicide. The fact there have been a number of supervening events that happened after PC Ali fell from the bonnet of Boris’ car stopped the flow of events. Since there is no more immediate and direct connection between the previous event at the street and the subsequent death of PC Ali from the negligent act of Colin, Colin cannot be prosecuted in connection with the death of PC Ali. c. Liability of Dr. Dan In the case of Dr. Dan, he can be prosecuted for tort of negligence in the practice of his profession. According to the case of Donoghoe v Stevenson [1932]11, Dr. Dan is a “neighbor” of PC Ali and he now takes of the duty of care for PC Ali. In the case of Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957)12, the failure of the doctor to perform what is expected of him under his profession is inexcusable and is therefore punishable under the law. Note that doctors are trained to save lives and they know the consequences of giving their patient the wrong type of treatment. Dr. Dan is duty bound to prevent harm from coming to his patients. According to the court in the case of Bolitho v City & Hackney Health Authority (1997)13, the acts of the doctor on duty should be able to stand of up to logical analysis. In other words, the acts of the doctor in performing his duty towards his patients should be examined in the context of his profession. His acts must show that what he did for his patient is what is expected of his profession given his education, training and expertise. Where there is a showing that the doctor did not give the right kind of service to his patient, he shall be help liable for tort of negligence and shall be punished accordingly. According to the case of Barnett v. Kensington and Chelsea Hospital Management Committee (1969)14, the doctor can be held liability for the damages suffered by the patient is he or she could have prevented that damage had he or she excised his duties diligently. Where the consequences of the negligent act are foreseeable and are the direct result of the breach of duty of care, the doctor can be said to have committed the tort of negligence. Can Dr. Dan be held directly liable for the death of his patient? Technically, the direct cause of the death of the patient is suicide. The wrong type of blood given to him gave him extreme discomforts but it was the not the main cause of his death. Note that had the patient not used the scalpel to kill himself. On the other hand, if the patient did not commit suicide but rather died as a result of the wrong type of blood transfused to him, them Dr. Dan can be held directly liable for his death. Total Word count for essay: 1,975 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. Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) AC 562 5. Offences Against the Persons Act 6. R v Ireland and Burstow (1997) QB 114 7. R v Malcherek and Steel (1981) 1 WLR 690 8. Regina V Ahluwalia [1992] 4 All E.R. 889, 898 9. R v Anthony Martin (2001) The Times November 1st 2001 10. R v William (1997) 3 All ER 411 CA 11. Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856) 11 Ex 781 12. Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990) 2 A.C. 605 13. R v Dytham (1979) QB 722 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