My first submission would emphasise on the case of Re A, and the use of greater evil.
Also could you help me as to my second submission as to what I could use. Also supporting cases that I could use.
Please! I'm really worried and wanted some supporting help
In the Supreme Court
R v Smith
Deborah Smith, aged 12, had been suffering from an inoperable malignant brain tumour for 6 months. Although she was receiving significant amounts of medication to help with her pain, she was still, in the terminal stages of her life, suffering considerably. All other curative treatments had ceased and she was being nursed at home by her parents.
Having nursed her through her long illness, Samantha Smith, Deborah’s mother, attempted suicide when her daughter’s pain reached an intolerable level.
A week later Samantha indicated her intention to take a large quantity of painkillers in order to end her life.
Samantha’s husband, Craig Smith, Deborah’s father, took the painkillers from Samantha and administered them to Deborah in the hope of relieving Deborah’s pain and avoiding Samantha’s suicide.
The amount of painkiller administered was virtually certain to kill and indeed did kill Deborah.
Craig Smith was charged with murder, and at his trial pleaded necessity as a defence to the charge. Jumble J held that necessity was not available as a defence to murder outside the strict factual situation in A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation)  4 All ER 961.
On the question of the mens rea for murder, the trial judge concluded that the test of foresight of virtual certainty adopted in A (Children) was correct, and that a result foreseen as virtually certain is the same as an intended result.
Craig Smith was found guilty of murder and appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial judge’s decision and held:
- 1. that necessity can be a defence to murder outside the strict factual situation in A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation)  4 All ER 961.
- 2. And that even if the defence of necessity could not be extended, a charge of murder could not be constituted because the test of foresight of virtual certainty adopted in A (Children) was incorrect, and that a result foreseen as virtually certain is not the same as an intended result.
The Crown now appeals to the Supreme Court; the questions certified by the Court of Appeal which gave permission to appeal to the Supreme Court are:
Senior Point of Appeal- 1.
Is the test of foresight of virtual certainty as interpreted in A (Children) consistent with the earlier House of Lords decision in R v Woollin  4 All ER 103, which held that where a consequence is foreseen as ‘virtually certain’, the jury may (not must) find that the defendant had the necessary intention?
Junior Point of Appeal- 2.
Is the defence of Necessity available outside the particular circumstances that arose in A (Children)?