Criminal Law problem scenario question

What does the law say if for example A tries to hit B, intending to cause GBH but mistakenly hits C. Then C ends up in hospital and was given incorrect treatment which led him to lapse into a coma for some weeks. At the time of his death the wound had healed, but on deciding there was no hope of regaining consciousness, the doctors, with the family’s agreement, turned off the life support system, and the victim died.

Would it be murder or manslaughter? Could the doctors be blamed for giving wrong treatments in the first place?

Strictly speaking, A caused injury but not death; the incorrect treatment seemed to have caused the death. The injury may have been survivable.

Reply 1

A1112787

9

(1) A accidentally hits C. A is liable for hitting C, although he did not intend such, via the principle of transferred malice (R v Latimer)

(2) C given incorrect treatment - causation: Jordan ('palpably wrong'), Cheshire ('operating and substantial') and Smith. C's wound is still operative when he is mistreated therefore the Drs will not be liable there.

(3) Revocation of life-support: Airedale NHS v Bland. I would argue that, as the wound has healed, and that as C dies from the removal of life-support (which is more significant than the wound which has healed, thus not operative under Cheshire), A won't be liable for C's death.

Depending on circumstances therefore A would be liable for non-fatal offence - likely either s.20 GBH or s.18 Wounding with Intent.

Reply 2

Lost_hope

3

is this for OCR criminal law paper?

Reply 3

M.a_star

OP

Original post by Lost_hope

is this for OCR criminal law paper?

Yes

Reply 4

Lost_hope

3

Original post by M.a_star

Yes

for section b did your teacher tell you to do homicide? Cause my teacher told me to do the homicide question

Reply 5

Lost_hope

3

Original post by M.a_star

What does the law say if for example A tries to hit B, intending to cause GBH but mistakenly hits C. Then C ends up in hospital and was given incorrect treatment which led him to lapse into a coma for some weeks. At the time of his death the wound had healed, but on deciding there was no hope of regaining consciousness, the doctors, with the family’s agreement, turned off the life support system, and the victim died.

Would it be murder or manslaughter? Could the doctors be blamed for giving wrong treatments in the first place?

Strictly speaking, A caused injury but not death; the incorrect treatment seemed to have caused the death. The injury may have been survivable.

isn't this scenario gross negligence manslaughter and constructive manslaughter

Reply 6

DarkChaoz95

18

Original post by Lost_hope

isn't this scenario gross negligence manslaughter and constructive manslaughter

mine is similar to the above scenario in a way.. let summerize it

V comes to library with some junk food and looks at a 17th century book whilst eating.

•

D says to V she not meant to be eating in the library

•

V says go away

•

D calls up security

•

V gets up and closes the book with the food instead the pages

•

D is shocked of what V did

•

V says its all D's fault and should have left her alone

•

manager comes to see whats the fuss and V blames D

•

D picks up the book and swings it at V's face and says a threat, V falls to the floor

at the hospital

•

V is found to have a fractured cheekbone & jaw.

•

Whilst being prepared for sugery, nurse mistaken v for another patient and sends her to the wrong operating room (which has her leg amputated)

•

V is shocked and refuses to take treatment. She dies 2 weeks later after contracting serious infection.

I hope you can understand that..

but what do u think the potiential offences are. and is this right?

to my understanding this is UAM but with the medical treatment issue it may break the chain of causation because of negligence. (but you could apply jordan.

if does it does break chain D can definitely be charged with ABH and possibly GBH S.20 but it will be easier for prosecution to go with S.47

Another offence Assault.

Another question can u apply defences to UAM (unlawful act) for the cause of assault or battery? Im not sure.

can ya help me out please it would be grateful :P

Reply 7

Lost_hope

3

Original post by DarkChaoz95

mine is similar to the above scenario in a way.. let summerize it

V comes to library with some junk food and looks at a 17th century book whilst eating.

•

D says to V she not meant to be eating in the library

•

V says go away

•

D calls up security

•

V gets up and closes the book with the food instead the pages

•

D is shocked of what V did

•

V says its all D's fault and should have left her alone

•

manager comes to see whats the fuss and V blames D

•

D picks up the book and swings it at V's face and says a threat, V falls to the floor

at the hospital

•

V is found to have a fractured cheekbone & jaw.

•

Whilst being prepared for sugery, nurse mistaken v for another patient and sends her to the wrong operating room (which has her leg amputated)

•

V is shocked and refuses to take treatment. She dies 2 weeks later after contracting serious infection.

I hope you can understand that..

but what do u think the potiential offences are. and is this right?

to my understanding this is UAM but with the medical treatment issue it may break the chain of causation because of negligence. (but you could apply jordan.

if does it does break chain D can definitely be charged with ABH and possibly GBH S.20 but it will be easier for prosecution to go with S.47

Another offence Assault.

Another question can u apply defences to UAM (unlawful act) for the cause of assault or battery? Im not sure.

can ya help me out please it would be grateful :P

you know at the end of the question does it say manslaughter or murder? but i think V will be charged with constructive manslaughter (UAM) and you would have to go through all the elements and the nurse would come under gross negligence and I agree with you there is a break in chain of causation because she died of the infection because the nurse put her in a wrong operating room. Also i don't think you can have other defenses with UAM and from what i seen in the paper battery and assault come separately to manslaughter or murder in section B. hope this helps :smile:

Reply 8

DarkChaoz95

18

Original post by Lost_hope

you know at the end of the question does it say manslaughter or murder? but i think V will be charged with constructive manslaughter (UAM) and you would have to go through all the elements and the nurse would come under gross negligence and I agree with you there is a break in chain of causation because she died of the infection because the nurse put her in a wrong operating room. Also i don't think you can have other defenses with UAM and from what i seen in the paper battery and assault come separately to manslaughter or murder in section B. hope this helps :smile:

Thanks!

thought so.. The question only asks to consider what D will be charged & what defences he has available to him so I put potientally UAM.. and the potiental defence is mistake/self defence of property. (not sure if defenses is applicable for UAM) I'm going to post a topic to ask that shortly

but if it does found to break the chain then he can be charged with S.47 for causing injuries itself.

Though i did right a note that the question also arises gross neg in relation to the nurse but the question only focuses on D's liability and not the nurse.

looked at sites to see whether there is defences to UAM looks like there is none.

for the medical treament in relation to causation im confused lol I put its

I said by applying chesire:

"medical negligence will not break the chain of causation unless the medical treatment was so independent of the defendants act and so potent in causing death that it rendered defendant’s act insignificant"

The nurse failed to diagnose which operating room that the V suppose to go. But D's act caused the injury itself which was significant because it led V to have an operation in the first place. and that the V could have accepted the treatment too if she wanted to but she refused (thin skull rule)

so i concluded D can be held liable for UAM. But I went on further should medical treatment was found to break the chain The defendant could be charged with S.47 ABH for the injuries

I always get confused with medical treatment lol

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 9

Lost_hope

3

Original post by DarkChaoz95

Thanks!

thought so.. The question only asks to consider what D will be charged with so I put potientally UAM.. but if it does found to break the chain then he can be charged with S.47 for causing injuries itself.

Though i did right a note that the question also arises gross neg in relation to the nurse but the question only focuses on D's liability and not the nurse.

looked at sites to see whether there is defences to UAM looks like there is none.

for the medical treament in relation to causation im confused lol I put its

I said by applying chesire:

"medical negligence will not break the chain of causation unless the medical treatment was so independent of the defendants act and so potent in causing death that it rendered defendant’s act insignificant"

The nurse failed to diagnose which operating room that the V suppose to go. But D's act caused the injury itself which was significant because it led V to have an operation in the first place. and that the V could have accepted the treatment too if she wanted to but she refused (thin skull rule)

so i concluded D can be held liable for UAM. But I went on further should medical treatment was found to break the chain The defendant could be charged with S.47 ABH for the injuries

I always get confused with medical treatment lol

I think thats want i would write as well if it's only asking the D. :smile:

Criminal Law problem scenario question

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you