Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Criminal Moot help- non-law student who is very lost and confused! Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Hi all,

    I thought it would be a good idea to sign up to my university's moot as a non-law student wanting to go into law, however, I am very lost and confused. I am acting as the respondent for the below case. Any ideas of cases, arguments, where to start etc would be very very welcomed!

    Many thanks in advance!
    --------------------
    Dr Arthur Jones was convicted at the Flitland Crown Court of the murder of Baby X. The following facts were not in dispute:

    At the time of the offence Dr Jones was in charge of the premature baby unit at the only hospital in the region. He had previously authorized the use of the only available life-support system for Baby X, whose chances of surviving without it for longer than a few hours were small.


    A little while later another, more viable baby, Baby Y, was brought to the unit needing immediate support. No alternatives being available, Dr Jones decided to remove the less viable baby, Baby X, from the life-support system to make room for the new arrival, Baby Y. Dr Jones made this decision entirely on his own initiative, and without any consultation with medical colleagues or the parents of Baby X. Baby X died soon afterwards, and Baby Y died five days later while still on the life-support system.

    On the advice of his counsel Dr Jones pleaded guilty to the murder of Baby X after Stern J. had intimated that he would direct the jury:

    1. that Dr Jones' conduct in removing Baby X from the life support was a voluntary act which would be the cause of death if the jury found as a fact that the baby would have lived for longer if life support had continued
    2. that Dr Jones's belief that the life-support system would give Baby Y a far better chance of survival than Baby X, would not give rise to a defence of necessity

    Dr Jones now appeals to the Court of Appeal on the ground that both rulings were erroneous, and that his conviction is accordingly unsafe.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Well, the point about Moots is that they are often 'unwinable' scenarios. And theoretically either side could win based on the case, in the above case you could argue for or against the doctor. If you argue against him, then you could cite the procedure to remove life support, a doctor cannot just of their own accord and without consultation remove life support, I would reccomend you research the ethics law of life support. However, you could also argue for him, that the doctor made a judgement call and chose to help the baby who needed it the most, you could cite Re A (conjoined twins) [2000], in which in obiter, it was stated the doctors did not kill Mary, it was simply an inevitability that she would die. However, if you do cite Re A, you may face problems as this case is used to determine necessity.

    The judgement should definitely not be murder, however, I would personally fight to have the charge amended to constructive manslaughter, possibly gross negligence manslaughter
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Avaia)
    Well, the point about Moots is that they are often 'unwinable' scenarios. And theoretically either side could win based on the case, in the above case you could argue for or against the doctor. If you argue against him, then you could cite the procedure to remove life support, a doctor cannot just of their own accord and without consultation remove life support, I would reccomend you research the ethics law of life support. However, you could also argue for him, that the doctor made a judgement call and chose to help the baby who needed it the most, you could cite Re A (conjoined twins) [2000], in which in obiter, it was stated the doctors did not kill Mary, it was simply an inevitability that she would die. However, if you do cite Re A, you may face problems as this case is used to determine necessity.

    The judgement should definitely not be murder, however, I would personally fight to have the charge amended to constructive manslaughter, possibly gross negligence manslaughter
    ok thank you that's really useful!
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.