T1 Cases - Elements of offences: Actus reus (omissions, causation) Flashcards
(6 cards)
R v Blaue (1975)
Summary: Manslaughter; refusal of blood transfusion on religious grounds; whether injury cause of death
Abstract: The fact that the victim of wounding declines on religious grounds a blood transfusion which would have saved his life does not break the causal connection between the act of wounding and death. The victim of a stab wound inflicted by the defendant when taken to hospital declined a blood transfusion, which would have saved her life, on religious grounds, she being a Jehovah’s Witness. The defendant was acquitted of murder but convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility, the judge having directed the jury that they might think that they had little option but to conclude that the stabbing was an operative or substantial cause of death.
Held, dismissing the appeal, that the judge’s direction was unimpeachable; that it does not lie in the mouth of an assailant to say that his victim’s religious beliefs which inhibited him from accepting certain kinds of treatment were unreasonable; that the judge would have been entitled to tell the jury that the stabbing was an operative cause of death.
Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993)
Summary: Medical treatment; maintenance of life by artificial feeding; patient in persistent vegetative state; whether cessation of treatment a violation of the sanctity of life
Abstract: The doctors treating B, who had been in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) for more than 2 years following severe injury, obtained a declaration that it was lawful to stop feeding him by tube. The Official Solicitor, acting on B’s behalf, appealed unsuccessfully (Times, December 10, 1992) and then appealed to the House of Lords.
Held: Since a PVS patient could not give or withhold consent to medical treatment, it was for the doctors to decide whether treatment was in the patients best interest. It was reasonable for them to conclude that treatment was not in the patients best interest, and should therefore be stopped, when there was no prospect of improvement. It was never lawful to take active steps to cause or accelerate death, although in certain circumstances it was lawful to withhold life sustaining treatment, including feeding, without which the patient would die. To disconnect a feeding tube was very different from administering drugs which would kill a patient. Observed: Applications should be made to the court for a declaration in every case where doctors proposed to discontinue treatment of PVS patients. In view of progress in the ability of medical science to keep patients alive by artificial means it was important that the current law should be reviewed by Parliament.
R v Stone and Dobinson (1977)
Summary: Death by neglect; infirm person; whether manslaughter
Abstract: A defendant who has undertaken the duty of caring for an infirm person can be properly convicted of their manslaughter only if he is proved to have been in reckless breach of that duty and not merely inadvertent. S, a 67-year-old widower who was partially deaf and almost totally blind with no appreciable sense of smell, lived with D, his mistress, who was ineffectual and inadequate, and his mentally subnormal son. A younger sister of S came to live with them and occupied a small room with no ventilation, toilet or washing facilities except a bucket. She was eccentric, suffered from anorexia nervosa and spent days at a time confined to her room. She soon became helplessly infirm and did not leave her bed but did not complain. D washed her on one occasion two weeks before her death with the help of a neighbour who advised her to go to the social services. Both S and D were advised to get a doctor. An unsuccessful attempt was made to find a doctor to see her but no other steps were taken to obtain outside help. No mention of the sister’s condition was made to a social worker who visited the son. The sister died from toxemia. Had she received medical treatment soon after she was washed she would probably have survived. S and D were charged with manslaughter. The trial judge directed the jury to consider all the circumstances according to the knowledge of the sister’s condition and appreciation of the need to act in relation to each defendant and to determine whether gross neglect of duty of care amounting to reckless disregard of the sister’s health and well being had been proved. Both were convicted and appealed.
Held, dismissing the appeals, that (1) the facts justified a finding that S and D had assumed a duty of care and were obliged either to summon help or to care for the sister themselves when she became infirm; (2) the breach of duty which had to be established was a reckless disregard of danger to her health and welfare by indifference to an obvious risk of injury to health or by actually foreseeing the risk and determining nevertheless to run it and the jury had been properly directed.
R v Miller (1983)
Summary: Arson; failure to act; whether an offence
Abstract: A defendant may be guilty of arson where, although unaware that his conduct has started a fire, he nevertheless, once aware of the situation, makes no effort to prevent or reduce the risk of further damage. M, a vagrant, went to live in an unoccupied house. One night he fell asleep with a lighted cigarette, which dropped onto the mattress setting it alight. M did nothing to extinguish the fire when he awoke but merely moved to another room. The house caught fire and GBP 800 damage was done.
Held, dismissing M’s appeal, that a defendant could be guilty of an offence where, notwithstanding that he was unaware his conduct had started a fire, when he became aware of events he was reckless as to the risk of further damage in not trying to prevent or reduce such risk.
R v Kennedy (2007)
Summary: The supplier of a Class A controlled drug would not be guilty of manslaughter if the person to whom the drug was supplied freely and voluntarily self-administered it.
Abstract: The appellant (K) appealed against a decision upholding his conviction for manslaughter. K and the deceased (B) both lived in a hostel. K visited the room in which B was staying, was told by B that he wanted “a bit to make him sleep”, prepared a dose of heroin and gave B a syringe ready for injection. B injected himself and returned the empty syringe to K, who left the room. B later died, the cause of death being the inhalation of gastric contents while acutely intoxicated by opiates and alcohol. The Court of Appeal certified the following question for the opinion of the House: “When is it appropriate to find someone guilty of manslaughter where that person has been involved in the supply of a class A controlled drug, which is then freely and voluntarily self-administered by the person to whom it was supplied, and the administration of the drug then causes his death?”.
Appeal allowed. The essential ratio of the decision of the Court of Appeal was that the administration of the injection had been a joint activity of K and B acting together. In this case, the heroin had been self-administered, not jointly administered.
R v Evans (2009)
Summary: For the purposes of the offence of gross negligence manslaughter, when a person had created or contributed to the creation of a state of affairs which he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, had become life-threatening, a consequent duty on him to act by taking reasonable steps to save the other’s life would normally arise. The question of whether a duty of care existed was a question for the judge, not the jury.
Abstract: The appellant (E) appealed against a conviction for manslaughter by gross negligence. E had bought heroin and handed some to her half-sister (V), who later self-administered the drug. E noticed that V looked as if she had taken an overdose, and decided to spend the night with her. E did not call for medical assistance as she feared she would get into trouble. When E woke, V was dead.
