This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
Should Mr Kitson have been convicted?
Scroll to see replies
ShinyApple
In this case, it was put in place to protect other road users from harm because of willful intoxication.
He was willfully intoxicated in a place where he shouldn't have been. He was therefore rightfully prosecuted, especially considering he could have harmed other road users.
You knew it was on, but you 'shouted' anyway. Strange young man.
He was willfully intoxicated in a place where he shouldn't have been. He was therefore rightfully prosecuted, especially considering he could have harmed other road users.
You knew it was on, but you 'shouted' anyway. Strange young man.
1) i couldn't be asked to back space and right it again .. actually
2) Criminal law seeks to punish those society deem as morally culpable, I am sure society won’t in this case. which makes it interesting.
Actually wait a minute. I'd argue that being drunk was his fault. Had he been sobre, it's possible he could, in exactly the same scenario, have avoided putting himself in a criminal situation, and driven carefully. Recklessness doesn't normally take drunkness into account. Get drunk if you want to, but suffer the consequences when you do things that would normally be unacceptable.
Someone was seriously convicted for this? I think that is crazy! He had no choice but to do it. If a doctor was in a pub having a few drinks and suddenly a man near by had some sort of medical emergency and the doctor tried to look after him whilst the ambulance was on its way, should the doctor being suspended from the medical register for attending to a patient whilst drunk?
I think some common sense needs to be applied when interprating the law! Stealing from a rich person because you are hungry is wrong in the eyes of the law because even if the good it does you is worth more to you than the bad you do to him, you are not entitled to make that choice to wrong someone. A drunk man in control of the car is far safer for himself, any bystanders and better for the insurance company, he is not wronging anyone, the reason drink driving is illegal is because it is an unaceptable levle of danger, but in his case it is a lower danger than not doing anything at all.
I think some common sense needs to be applied when interprating the law! Stealing from a rich person because you are hungry is wrong in the eyes of the law because even if the good it does you is worth more to you than the bad you do to him, you are not entitled to make that choice to wrong someone. A drunk man in control of the car is far safer for himself, any bystanders and better for the insurance company, he is not wronging anyone, the reason drink driving is illegal is because it is an unaceptable levle of danger, but in his case it is a lower danger than not doing anything at all.
HCD
There shouldn't have been a conviction. Stealing is different, because it's not a victimless crime. In this case, considering that there were no victims, but there would've been victims had he not done it. Law for the sake of law is stupid.
1) Stealing is different, because it's not a victimless crime - unless you the one stolen from??
Lord Denning, again, used that as an example to say that there is no justification of necessity to commit a crime.
this reminds me of a similar case - on that principle - Dudley & Stephens:
Three sailors and a cabin boy were shipwrecked
After they had been eight days without food,they decided that their only chance of survival was to kill the cabin boy and eat him, and this they did.
Four days later they were saved and convicted of murder when returning to england.
they did a crime out of necessity - to survive - but it was not allowed as a defence.
Gilliwoo
Actually wait a minute. I'd argue that being drunk was his fault. Had he been sobre, it's possible he could, in exactly the same scenario, have avoided putting himself in a criminal situation, and driven carefully. Recklessness doesn't normally take drunkness into account. Get drunk if you want to, but suffer the consequences when you do things that would normally be unacceptable.
of course being drunk is his fault
the question here is one of NECESSITY
he did something illegal but to save himself
but I am sure whilst indulging in a lot of alcohol, he didn't invisage being alone in a car speeding down a hill ... but recklessness is no defence for deliberate intoxication.
Avada_Kedavra
1) Stealing is different, because it's not a victimless crime - unless you the one stolen from??
Lord Denning, again, used that as an example to say that there is no justification of necessity to commit a crime.
this reminds me of a similar case - on that principle - Dudley & Stephens:
Three sailors and a cabin boy were shipwrecked
After they had been eight days without food,they decided that their only chance of survival was to kill the cabin boy and eat him, and this they did.
Four days later they were saved and convicted of murder when returning to england.
they did a crime out of necessity - to survive - but it was not allowed as a defence.
Lord Denning, again, used that as an example to say that there is no justification of necessity to commit a crime.
this reminds me of a similar case - on that principle - Dudley & Stephens:
Three sailors and a cabin boy were shipwrecked
After they had been eight days without food,they decided that their only chance of survival was to kill the cabin boy and eat him, and this they did.
Four days later they were saved and convicted of murder when returning to england.
they did a crime out of necessity - to survive - but it was not allowed as a defence.
Why didn't they offer themselves as food instead...
going to be discussing this in a seminar in 30 mins.
be back later to see how things have moved.
be back later to see how things have moved.
Avada_Kedavra
of course being drunk is his fault
the question here is one of NECESSITY
he did something illegal but to save himself
but I am sure whilst indulging in a lot of alcohol, he didn't invisage being alone in a car speeding down a hill ... but recklessness is no defence for deliberate intoxication.
the question here is one of NECESSITY
he did something illegal but to save himself
but I am sure whilst indulging in a lot of alcohol, he didn't invisage being alone in a car speeding down a hill ... but recklessness is no defence for deliberate intoxication.
I'm going to go on the "get drunk at your own peril" stand here. The acts that you may commit whilst drunk remain objectively dangerous. Necessity only factors because he was drunk: that's not a particularly wise excuse to tolerate for dangerous actions. Had he been sobre, no defence would have been necessary.
Gilliwoo
I'm going to go on the "get drunk at your own peril" stand here. The acts that you may commit whilst drunk remain objectively dangerous. Necessity only factors because he was drunk: that's not a particularly wise excuse to tolerate for dangerous actions. Had he been sobre, no defence would have been necessary.
yeah i know - I am not justifying it - but I think its too harsh under the circumstances.
*titanium*
Someone was seriously convicted for this? I think that is crazy!
I thought so too at first but I think arguments can be made for it. The criminal law exists to prevent harm, not to justify good. So the crime, or result, or harm to be prevented is always the first thing it considers. He certainly needed to save his life, but he can't use the excuse that he did so dangerously because he was drunk. There's something wrong there.
If a doctor was in a pub having a few drinks and suddenly a man near by had some sort of medical emergency and the doctor tried to look after him whilst the ambulance was on its way, should the doctor being suspended from the medical register for attending to a patient whilst drunk?
I would hope so! If he's drunk he should let somebody else do something. How would you fancy a drunk doctor working on you?
A drunk man in control of the car is far safer for himself, any bystanders and better for the insurance company
That's the point: he wasn't in full and effective cotnrol of the car. He was driving erratically, and I wonder if he would have been able to react to any sudden danger.
he is not wronging anyone
It was a matter of luck that he didn't wrong anyone, not a result of acceptable conduct.
the reason drink driving is illegal is because it is an unaceptable levle of danger, but in his case it is a lower danger than not doing anything at all.
The danger here was comparable. He'd have been ****ed both ways.
Gilliwoo
I thought so too at first but I think arguments can be made for it. The criminal law exists to prevent harm, not to justify good. So the crime, or result, or harm to be prevented is always the first thing it considers. He certainly needed to save his life, but he can't use the excuse that he did so dangerously because he was drunk. There's something wrong there.
The purpose of criminal law is to equally punish culpable people. Had the car been properly parked he wouldn’t have had to touch the steering wheel. I think that to be properly convicted you have to prove that he was responsible which is debateable.
Gilliwoo
I would hope so! If he's drunk he should let somebody else do something. How would you fancy a drunk doctor working on you?
Well the doctor is under no obligation to do anything anyway under the common law
But what distinguishes this from Kitson in that there he had no choice – but to do what he had to do to save his life.
If a person is placed in a situation where they have to pick between two evils – then society, generally, permits the lesser evil to be picked. Then, why doesn’t by principle support such a position.
That wasn't aimed at you particularly, just wanted to make the point.
If a doctor was in a pub having a few drinks and suddenly a man near by had some sort of medical emergency and the doctor tried to look after him whilst the ambulance was on its way, should the doctor being suspended from the medical register for attending to a patient whilst drunk?
Fear of litigation should something go wrong is in fact a big deterrent to doctors from being heroic bystanders. Even more so in the more litigious USA.
Avada_Kedavra
Well the doctor is under no obligation to do anything anyway under the common law
I'd walk on though, especially on the way back from a mess party.
Using Kitson as an example is rather disingenuous. Modern common law has clearly recognised a defence of duress of circumstances (stated to be all but synonymous with necessity by the Court of Appeal in Pommell [1995]), inter alia, in the contexts of motoring offences (Conway [1989], Willer [1987]); preventing "some geezer" being murdered with a sub-machine gun (Pommell [1995]); and medical procedures (F v WBHA [1990] (HL authority), R v Bournewood CMHNT [1998]). Plus of course there are specific statutory provisions which essentially nullify Denning's obiter comments in Buckoke v GLC [1971] regarding fire engines.
Certainly there's lots of room for debate about whether or not the scope of this protean defence should be expanded, but English law is by no means as restrictive as you make out..
Certainly there's lots of room for debate about whether or not the scope of this protean defence should be expanded, but English law is by no means as restrictive as you make out..
kalokagathia
Using Kitson as an example is rather disingenuous. Modern common law has clearly recognised a defence of duress of circumstances (stated to be all but synonymous with necessity by the Court of Appeal in Pommell [1995]), inter alia, in the contexts of motoring offences (Conway [1989], Willer [1987]); preventing "some geezer" being murdered with a sub-machine gun (Pommell [1995]); and medical procedures (F v WBHA [1990] (HL authority), R v Bournewood CMHNT [1998]). Plus of course there are specific statutory provisions which essentially nullify Denning's obiter comments in Buckoke v GLC [1971] regarding fire engines.
Certainly there's lots of room for debate about whether or not the scope of this protean defence should be expanded, but English law is by no means as restrictive as you make out..
Certainly there's lots of room for debate about whether or not the scope of this protean defence should be expanded, but English law is by no means as restrictive as you make out..
Yes - I wasn't meaning to be disingenuous
I simply wanted to debate that case, as I feel that the wrong conclusion was drawn.
Yes the position towards nessecity has changed since then.
And yes it isn't as constrained. I ought to have pointed that out. But thanks.
Renal
Hate to nitpick what is otherwise a very good thread, but the guidance I have from my defence union is that doctors do have an obligation to render aid and to inform the patient if they have been drinking.
I'd walk on though, especially on the way back from a mess party.
I'd walk on though, especially on the way back from a mess party.
oh god!
I didn't realise that doctors could provide medical help whilst not on duty.
I didn't realise they had an obligation, regardless of whether they had alcohol. I suppose it is because of their specialism?
Could you be be liable for damages in failing to help someone which could have?
Avada_Kedavra
oh god!
I didn't realise that doctors could provide medical help whilst not on duty.
I didn't realise they had an obligation, regardless of whether they had alcohol. I suppose it is because of their specialism?
Could you be be liable for damages in failing to help someone which could have?
I didn't realise that doctors could provide medical help whilst not on duty.
I didn't realise they had an obligation, regardless of whether they had alcohol. I suppose it is because of their specialism?
Could you be be liable for damages in failing to help someone which could have?
Surely doctors don't have an obligation to help whislt not on duty
Avada_Kedavra
oh god!
I didn't realise that doctors could provide medical help whilst not on duty.
I didn't realise they had an obligation, regardless of whether they had alcohol. I suppose it is because of their specialism?
Could you be be liable for damages in failing to help someone which could have?
I didn't realise that doctors could provide medical help whilst not on duty.
I didn't realise they had an obligation, regardless of whether they had alcohol. I suppose it is because of their specialism?
Could you be be liable for damages in failing to help someone which could have?
I have no idea whether you would be liable for failing to help (probably professionally if not legally or civilly).
However, the example given is on a flight - where you're identifiable as a doctor and where you could not fail to be made aware of the need for your services.
Many professional people like doctors have a duty of carewhile off duty (police officers, fire fighters, etc.)
It's like they are never off duty.
It's like they are never off duty.
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
