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

Werid problem question on involuntary manslaugh, cant idenifty actual offences Law 3

Aaron went home and drank some wine mixed with some tablet's from yesterday's party. He then went out on his bike while cycling at high speed past Ellie another cyclist kicked out at her and knocked her off her bike. Ellie clearly had arm and shoulder injuries and was taken to hospital. However Felix a junior doctor who attended to her on admission did not realise she had suffered serious internal injuries. By the time the extend of her injuries were discovered it was too late to save her life

The thing I don't get is Aaron hasent done anything as he simple cycled past and another cyclist kicked out no actus reus and its not an omission. The question says its involuntary manslaughter it cant be unlawful act as what's the unlawful act. And is the doctor done for gross negligence manslaughter? If so is it contractual duty

Thanks in advance

Reply 1

notskeletor

The doctor would be charged with Gross-negligence manslaughter. The duty would be a presumed doctor-patient. And I think the Unlawful and dangerous Act committed by Aaron would be a battery.

Reply 2

Loafie

Perhaps you're misreading it...
'He then went out on his bike while cycling at high speed past Ellie another cyclist kicked out at her and knocked her off her bike'. I think you have interpreted it 'past Ellie, another cyclist..', ie there was a third cyclist that kicked out, but it would make sense if Ellie was just another cyclist and so Aaron did the damage. Therefore it would be UAM with the defence of intoxication.

What exam board and year is this scenario from?

Reply 3

funkyfish1

Going by what the text says aaron is innocent - he had nothing to do with the third party kicking out at ellie. Thus no actus/mens Rea apparent. Although he commiting a crime by cycling his bike drunk (https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q411.htm)
Morover, felix is subject to prosecution if the cps considered it to be in the public interest and the prosecution will be successful. This is probable as Felix missed her fatal injuries. Moreover, "the prosecution will have to satisfy the jury beyond reasonable doubt that each element of the crime is proved. The elements for the crime of gross negligence manslaughter have been developed by the courts, and were affirmed in the case of Adomako, in 1995¹, which illustrates the context of this offence. A patient had died after his anaesthetist failed to check that the oxygen supply remained connected to his endotracheal tube during retinal surgery, or to react to the consequent cessation of movements of breathing in this paralysed patient, or to the cessation of the ventilator’s indicators of oxygen delivery.
The court held that to be convicted, the following elements had to be proved:
(i) the defendant must have breached their duty of care by virtue of their negligence
(ii) that the negligence must have caused death
(iii) that the negligence complained of must amount to ‘gross negligence’." - http://www.uhs.nhs.uk/HealthProfessionals/Clinical-law-updates/Manslaughter-by-doctors.aspx
I havent studied criminal law for a while so my knowledge is pretty hazy but if i where to try and answer this question these are the sort of things i would consider

Reply 4

mya975

Gross negligence manslaughter for the doctor as he failed to act in time. If further explanation needed have a look at Adomako case where an anaesthetist failed to notice the disconnected oxygen tube and the patient died.