Hey guys any help on the second ground of appeal? on the side of the appellant?
In the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)R v Smith George Smith is a taxi driver in Lindum. One day, while driving to pick up a fare, Georgewent round a roundabout and “nipped in front” of a lorry driven by Frank Swift. Frank wasvery angry at George’s driving as he had to brake quite sharply to avoid colliding withGeorge. At the next set of traffic lights Frank pulled up beside George and got out of his lorry toremonstrate with George about his driving. George saw Frank coming and locked his cardoors. Frank knocked on the door and window but George stared straight in front of him.Frank then ran round to the front of the car and was hitting the bonnet and windscreen withhis fist. He was so angry that one blow caused a crack in the windscreen. At this point, thelights changed to green. George would later say to police that he merely wanted to getaway from what he thought was a “maniac” so he accelerated away from the lights. Frankwas still in front of the car and he jumped on the bonnet, holding onto the windscreenwipers. The car travelled for a distance of half a mile with Frank clinging on. At that pointGeorge went round a bend and one of the windscreen wipers gave way. Frank was thrownoff the car bonnet and struck his head on the pavement. Frank was taken to hospital. In theambulance he made a statement to an accompanying police officer. He said that as the carwas driven towards him he leapt on the bonnet to avoid being run over and from that pointon he was clinging on for dear life. He also stated that he just wanted to give George “apiece of his mind” and had no intention of hurting him. At Lindum Hospital Frank was treated in Accident and Emergency by a junior doctor whofailed to carry out any scans and simply discharged him with advice to take painkillers.Unfortunately, Frank had suffered bleeding in his brain from hitting his head on thepavement and died at home two hours after being discharged from hospital. George was arrested and subsequently charged with murder. At his trial George’s defencecounsel made several submissions. It was argued that George lacked the necessary mensrea to be convicted of murder and also that George’s actions were not legally the cause ofFrank’s death. The judge in his summing up told the jury that if they were satisfied that atthe material time George recognised that death or serious harm was a virtual certainlybarring some unforeseen intervention then his defence was “doomed to fail”. The judge alsoruled that there had been no break in the chain of causation as a result of the actions of thejunior doctor as the mistreatment was ‘not sufficiently independent of the acts of theDefendant’. George was convicted of murder and now appeals to the Court of Appeal, Criminal Divisionagainst his conviction. The grounds of appeal are:
- That the trial judge misdirected the jury on the mens rea requirements for murder;and
- That the conduct of the junior doctor amounted to medical treatment which was‘palpably wrong’ in accordance with the test laid down by the Court of Appeal in R vJordan  40 Cr App R 152 and therefore George’s actions were not legally acause of Frank’s death.
Mooting help R v Jordan Watch
- Thread Starter
- 24-03-2016 21:03