Fatal offences - GNM Flashcards
(12 cards)
R v Adomako
Medical professionals owe a duty of care to patients
Failed to check a tube connection and patient died. According to competent doctor in same situation - conduct amounted to criminal
R v Broughton
6 part test
The defence stated that the Prosecution must prove that Louella would have lived with timely medical intervention. The Prosecution however stated that this test was too onerous and that the defendant must only have deprived Louella of a significant chance of survival
Gave gf a class a drug at festival and failed to call for help - noone had died from this drug
Robinson v cc west yorkshire
capro v dickman onl needs applying in new and novel cases - esatblish duty with existing cases
r v wacker
even if both in an agreed partnership to commit unlawful activity - complicit in crime
lorry driver transporting immigrants closed vents on ferry to avoide suspicion anf majoruty suffocated
r v evans
if an individual caused or contributed to creating a life-threatening situation; a consequent duty would normally arise to take reasonable steps to save the person’s life - created a state of affairs
gave sister heroin and did not call police as feared getting in troublr
r v stone and dobinson
futy can be assumed voluntarily.
failed to look after sister with weight mrntal issues
r v instan
duty imposed when one party assumes responsibility fro another
Whilst she had the gangrene infection, the victim could only be aided by Instan and it was only Instan that had knowledge of her condition in the final days of her life. On this basis, it was held that Instan owed the victim a duty of care and that she did not discharge this duty with the actions mentioned in the facts. The failure to do so was deemed to at least accelerate the death of the deceased.
r v gibbins and proctor
duty can be because of a relationship
Gibbins and his partner, Proctor, neglected and starved V, Gibbins’s child
blyth v birmingham waterworks
negligence is the omission to do soemthing which a reasonable man would do or something vice versa
The court determined that while the waterworks company had a duty of care to maintain their pipes and fire hydrants properly, they were not negligent because the severe frost was an extraordinary and unforeseeable event. A reasonable person, guided by ordinary circumstances, would not have foreseen such extreme weather.
r v rudling
no serious risk of death
“The risk must be both serious and obvious to the reasonable person to support a conviction for gross negligence manslaughter.”
r v rose
no forseeable serious and obvious risk of death
medical professionals who fail to carry out their job by not performing examinations or looking at the wrong files may actually be acquitted whereas their counterparts who performed such tests or looked at the results but omitted from taking action or suggesting treatment may be convicted.
carries out seye e xam failed to see build up of brain fluid as reviewed wrong picture
r v bateman
held that ordinary negligence is not enough for criminal liability.
For gross negligence manslaughter, the conduct must show such disregard for life and safety that it amounts to a crime deserving punishment.
at home birth not sent to hospital until 5 days later
