The Student Room Group
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

Criminal Law Causation Question

I'm currently watching Law and Order: UK and a case that they have on there has thrown up a question that I hope someone may be able to clarify for me. Now I know that L&O: UK is, like all other dramas about complex professions, prone to errors - but this one particularly intrigued me.

Basically, V (A Police Officer and the Victim) was caught in the crossfire between X and Y (who were in a shootout). X shot V but later got shot by Y himself and he died. This seems clear to me; X is guilty of murder, the mens rea is satisfied by transferred malice but he's dead so can't stand trial. However, it later emerges that D (the defendant and V's 'beat' partner) did not respond deliberately to the calls for assistance despit being round the corner because he disliked V for being gay.

D is charged with gross negligence manslaughter. My question is; does this mean D's actions were so negligent that they were suffice to break the chain of causation and exempt X from liability? I don't think, on these facts, it sounds like they were, or, had X been alive could he be charged with murder whilst D was still charged with Manslaughter? Once again, I don't think he could have been.

Sorry it's quite complicated but I was just wondering if anyone could clarify it.
Reply 1
Avatar for Mr_Deeds
Mr_Deeds
13
Original post by chiggy321
My question is; does this mean D's actions were so negligent that they were suffice to break the chain of causation and exempt X from liability? I don't think, on these facts, it sounds like they were, or, had X been alive could he be charged with murder whilst D was still charged with Manslaughter? Once again, I don't think he could have been.

Sorry it's quite complicated but I was just wondering if anyone could clarify it.


It essentially means that D's actions were so negligent that they should attract the sanction of the criminal law as opposed to, for example, a tortious claim for negligence. If X had survived you're absolutely right in that he would have been charged with murder. And yes, even if so charged, D could still be prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter. :smile:
Reply 2
Avatar for chiggy321
chiggy321
OP
8
Original post by Mr_Deeds
It essentially means that D's actions were so negligent that they should attract the sanction of the criminal law as opposed to, for example, a tortious claim for negligence. If X had survived you're absolutely right in that he would have been charged with murder. And yes, even if so charged, D could still be prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter. :smile:


Oh I see, thank you very much - that definitely clears things up! Given the need for actions to be contributory and not necessarily the main factor in relation to a death I had wondered whether or not two people could be charged for seperate offences in relation to one death but it appears that they can! So thanks once again.
Reply 3
Avatar for Mr_Deeds
Mr_Deeds
13
Original post by chiggy321
Oh I see, thank you very much - that definitely clears things up! Given the need for actions to be contributory and not necessarily the main factor in relation to a death I had wondered whether or not two people could be charged for seperate offences in relation to one death but it appears that they can! So thanks once again.


Welcome :smile:!

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you