R v MacDonald and MacDonald - Case Study Example

R v MacDonald and MacDonald [1904] St R Qd 151 Background This is a case of Angus MacDonald and his wife Flora MacDonald who were convicted of the murder of Angus MacDonald’s daughter who was from a previous marriage. The allegations on the case were that the death of the Angus’s daughter who is referred to as G.M was caused by serious omissions of duty which consisted of ill-treatment, violence, failure to provide food, clothing and medical care. A.M and F.M were charged with the duty to provide G.M with the necessities of life and there was sufficient evidence to show that A.M and F.M had for some time exercised a joint control over G.M and that they had acted in concert and for a common purpose. It was therefore claimed that the neglects by these two people to provide the necessities of life to G.M caused her death. 1 Facts Apart from statutory provisions, there was sufficient evidence that the prisoner had neglected G.M which was against the law. He had committed offences against the common law and this warranted a judicial process to take place or to begin.2 There was evidence also that A.M deliberately denied G.M medical assistance or aid yet he had the capacity or he was capable of offering the medical aid to G.M. Though this evidence was not sufficient to incriminate F.M, they were both accused of deliberately intending the death of G.M. Adequate evidence mostly on the A.Ms side on these issues was a clear indication or clearly indicated neglect which is an omission of The children’s Protection Act of 1896(60 Vic., No.26), s.1 and The Criminal Code, ss.285, 301,302. This evidence made the case difficult to defend because the basis of argument mostly for A.M was limited by the evidence which was provided before the court.3 Legal arguments and counter arguments Resolution of the matter required consideration of the lawfulness of the direction issued. The prisoners were charged with willful murder and were tried by Power J and a jury at the February Criminal settings of the Central Court. These prisoners were found guilty and were given a death sentence. One of the witnesses Russell Poole, a mailman, saw the girl in a very miserable condition when she delivered a letter to him. She looked very sick and Poole questioned the responsibility of those charged with the duty of care to the girl. When Fredrick Millburn visited the prisoners to report on travelling sheep, she saw the girl who had swollen feet and was very dirty. The girl seemed skinny and boney; this indicated that she was in a very miserable condition.4 William Avery met A.M. in longreach on October 3rd and had a conversation with him. A.M. argued that he was making arrangements to an industrial school or a reformatory but there were delays as a result of several barriers in the arrangements. This was a serious delay because he had seen the poor condition of the girl for some time but kept on ignoring the girl and this was an indication of neglect.5 In summing up to the jury, this case was referred to the s.285 of The Criminal Code as a peculiarly applicable circumstances of the case. Cooper CJ argued that both accused especially the father had a special duty to attend to the wants of the deceased. The jury was informed or told that the parents were charged with the duty of nourishing and protecting their children where failure to do that might be both willful and deliberate or might arise from carelessness and neglect without being designed to any specific end.6 In reply to the judge’s decision, Real J asked: “How could the jury find both prisoners guilty, unless on the ground that they acted in correct?”7 He said that the jury should have had the opportunity of considering the case from the points of view both commission and omission. Real J further argued that the direction given does not allow any amount of omission to constitute willful murder. The learned judge said that the negligence alone is not sufficient, but it must be coupled with ill treatment and absence of medical aid. He argued that the cases do not show that any duty was imposed on the woman. He further said that there was no evidence that the death of the child was caused by neglect of duty.8 Also, Chubb J stated that the medical aid was under the circumstances of this case a necessity of life and that there was no evidence from which the jury could draw the inference that A.M had, with the assent of F.M., deliberately abstained from ailing in medical aid, both prisoners desiring and intending the death or acceleration of the death of G.M.9 Appeal Mr. Lukin, who was the counsel to the A.M and F.M., asked for a direction that there was no evidence of any neglect of duty on the part of F.M. He was reacting to the judge’s statement that there was sufficient evidence apart from the statutory provisions that the prisoners omitted their duties which are clearly stated in the common law. The judge argued that F.M and A.M deliberately denied G.M medical aid which in turn caused her death.10The acquittal of F.M. was declined and this request was declined on the basis of s.285 of the Criminal code. It was argued that if the object of the accused was to kill the child by a slow course of torture and a slow course of neglect; it was murder and if there was no desire to kill the child, then it would be manslaughter only. On the other hand, if the accused acted in concert intending to produce death, then both accused would be guilty of willful murder. Mr Lukin argued that “the learned judge was wrong in directing the jury that the same duty was imposed on both prisoners. The duty of supplying food, clothing, and medical attention is in law on the father and not the female prisoner unless the fact that these duties were delegated is established.”11 Objections The judge sentenced A.M and F.M to death arguing that sufficient evidence had showed that the death of G.M had been caused by deliberate nets and omissions of duty by the prisoners.12Mr Lukin objected to the directions of the other side concerning the duty of the prisoners to attend to the wants of the deceased and asked for the jury to be redirected concerning the omission and to obtain medical evidence for the deceased. It was argued that the fact that both accused did not call in any medical attendant might be evidence of neglect but was not necessarily so. Mr Lukin argued that according to what the law stipulates, F.M. should not have been convicted because the duty of care of G.M. was not hers. This view or argument was supported by Real J who said that: “On my examination of the cases, I do not find it anywhere suggested that no duty is on the wife. She owes no duty unless delegated, for the husband has charge of the child in law.”13 Validity of law application The jury found the prisoners guilty of willful murder, and passed a death sentence to them but respected execution. The following questions were reserved for the consideration of the court. Whether there was any legal evidence of a legal duty on behalf of the female prisoner and a neglect of the legal duty which caused or accelerated the death of the deceased?, whether there was any medical evidence upon which the jury was justified upon arriving at the conclusion?, whether the direction of the counsel that both of the prisoners as a matter of law, particularly the father had a special duty to attend to the wants of the deceased? Whether the direction of the counsel that the fact of the prisoners not calling in medical assistance might be evidence of neglect, but was not necessarily so?14 Chubb CJ pointed out Lukin argued that the learned judge was wrong in directing the jury that the same duty was imposed on both prisoners. The duty of supplying clothing, food, and medical attention is according to the law the duty of the father and not F.M.15 and agreed by Real J referring to The Criminal Code s.285 “It is the duty of every person having charge of another who is unable by reason of age, sickness, unsoundness of mind, detention or any other cause to withdraw himself from such charge, and who is unable to provide himself with the necessities of life.”16 Conclusion The judge did not effectively utilize the law and he made a wrong decision in convicting both prisoners. It is argued that the learned judge decided to question F.M. responsibility when it ought to have been left to the jury. This is further strengthened by Real J who questioned: “How could the jury find both prisoners guilty, unless on the ground that they acted on concert?”17 The judge’s decision is further criticized by Sir A Rutledge who argued that “the evidence shows that the death was caused or contributed to by the neglect of someone. The neglect would be a breach of duty on the head of the house - The father.”18 Moreover, there is no evidence that F.M. mistreated the child or failed in any duty and the crown did not open the case of concert. 14R v MacDonald and MacDonald [1904] St R Qd 151, 168. 15Ibid 160 16Ibid 171. 17Ibid 161. 18Ibid 163. Read More