Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Criminal problem question

Hi guys,

I'm having problems with deciding what offence to consider the defendant liable for in the scenario. It is quite cleaar that when you apply the rules of Jordan to it, that causation has not been established, but I do not know whether to therefore consider murder, or just to consider attempted murder/ gbh with intent instead as the Dr's act would be a novus actus interveniens. Here's the scenario.

Sally is a contestant in a talent show. She spots the judge's score sheet and stuffs it in her bag, intending to read it, then return it. Tammy enters the hall and begins to mock Sally. Sally gets upset and is very sensitive. She hits Tammy on the face and neck several times with a glass bottle, screaming 'Lets see how you do on Saturday once I'm through with you'. Tammy collapses unconscious.
Sally runs away, but bumps into Harry, who asks why she's in such a hurry. Sally panics and pushes Harry to the ground. An MP3 player falls from his pocket. Sally thinks it is the one she lent him a week ago so takes it. She later discoovers it is not, but decides to keep it until he returns hers.
Tammy is rushed to hospital in a critical condition. She receives blood transfusions and stitches, but when the injuries are almost healed she gets an infection. The Dr fails to check Tammy's chart and prescribes an antibiotic she is allergic to. Tammy has an allergic reaction and dies.
Sally is arrested and diagnosed with a mental disorder, making it difficult for her to conduct herself in stressful situations and may have affected her ability to understand the consequences of her actions.

Any help at all would be welcomed!

Reply 1

atiffany2401

Where you are saying that causation has not been established, you could speculate as to whether it would be murder etc. if the scenario was different (so as to make murder a possibility). This shows your understanding of the way the law works - but in the time given don't neglect things which can be established on the facts as they are. Say 'if the jury were to find...[something else happened which made causation more likely]...' then explore murder.

But, general rule, unless you have time, don't write about stuff which hasn't happened/been established by the facts unless you have time after addressing the stuff which definitely can be found/proven.