Friday, June 14, 2019

Criminal Law. Problem Question. R v Danny Johnson Essay

Criminal Law. Problem Question. R v Danny Johnson - Essay ExampleThe burden of prove lies on the shoulder of the defendant concerning social movement of death of the victim. Here, mentioned points be worth consideration a) whether the defendant responsible for the victims death b) can he be caught in accordance with law c) whether the victims death social movement of inflicted injury or some other intervening act d) whether the victim receive proper medical treatment e) whether the attempted escape of defendant driving victims death. In this respect we may cite here the case of R v White 1910 2 KB 124. The defendant cut poison in his mothers glass but she died delinquent to heart failure. The cause of death was heart failure and not the intake of the virulent drink. He was tried and convicted of attempted murder2. In another case of R v Smith 1959 2 QB 35, it was held that the defendants operating and substantial cause of death is the cause in Law. There are circumstances wher ein the intervening acts of the defendant attributes to the cause of death of a victim. As per law, defendant cannot be accountable provided the victim died due(p) to the acts of others misdeed. It does not mean that in every case of intervening acts that cause the death of a victim, defendant will be shrive from its liability. Following grounds can be considered to get hold of the defendant causing death of a person a) if the death caused to multiple reasons wherein the defendants role was operating and substantial, he / she will be liable for punishment under the law. Let us examine the case of R v Malcherek (1981) 73 Cr App R 173. Wherein the cleaning woman had received fatal injuries for which she had to place on the life supporting mechanism. Taking into account the clinical death and found no hope of recovery, doctors decided to disconnect the life supporting machine that caused her to death within half an hour. The defendant charged with attempted murder, tried and awarde d death sentence. He subsequently went on to appeal against the judgment of the trial court to the Court of Appeal on the plea that the doctors had broken the cycle of life by by design switching off the life supporting machine. The plea was dismissed. It was held by the Court of Appeal that since the operating and substantial factors involved that cause the death of wounded woman which was initially inflicted upon by the defendant. The court was of the view that since the role of life supporting machine was confined to keep the injuries in suspension, therefore, as soon as the machine went off the original wounds came on the surface causing death of wounded woman3. Apart from the above, the badly wounded person may succumb to injuries as a natural consequence of the defendant acts. In the mentioned scenario the defendant got hold of death. Suppose a person is attacked and left in the lurch on the road side. The aggressor will be liable for punishment if the wounded person dies of oozing out blood, for infectious wounds of him, run over by the speedy vehicle. The other look round, defendant would not be accountable provided he / she killed by another murderer or killed under the debris of a collapsible building due to hell of a tremor. Nonetheless where Human intervention meant for self-preservation / in execution of a legal duty does not hamper the chain of cause of incident. breeding of the case of R v Paget (1983) 76 Cr App R 279

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.