CRIMINAL LAW
CASE: DPP V JOFFREY BARATHEON
My name is Daniel ogbonna and in this case I would be supporting the DPP.
Legal issues: That the court of appeal should hold a re-trial and use the de minims test.
Law: In this section we will be looking at the Actus reus and under this we will look at omission and causation the exceptions and we will also look at manslaughter.
An omission ‘a failure to act ‘that means when a person is bound to do or act but he omits to do the that or deliberately neglect it. Under this we have seven exception which are Common law duty to act, Contractual duty to act, Special relationship with the victim, Voluntary assumption of responsibility, Duty arising from defendants own conduct, Particular offences and …show more content…
This in our judgement means the whole man, not just the physical man. It does not lie in the mount of the assailant to say that his victim’s religious beliefs which inhibited him from accepting certain kinds of treatment were unreasonable. The question for decision is what caused her death. The answer is the stab wound’. Also in the case of R v Flynn (1987) Flynn was convicted of the manslaughter of Tracey, whom he had struck on the head with a stone. Tracey died four days after the incident, without, in the meantime, having visited a doctor. Flynn argued that Tracey’s conduct during those four days constituted a Novus actus interveniens. His argument was rejected by Pigot J in the central Criminal court who stated; If a man, who has received a serious blow or hurt, does not alter his ways in the account, but continues to go through the ordinary course of life which he has been accustomed to purse, that shall not exonerate the giver of blow from the his liability if such conduct has the effect of causing death. In other words, you take your victim as you find them and if your victim does not want medical treatment it is no argument to say failure treatment breaks the chain of causation. So in the case even if the victim refused to take food or medication it was up to the accused to call the hospital for help but he failed to do so. Even if he had no intention to kill the victim he had legal duty to perform. In this instance we have the case of R v Taktak (1988) the appellant hired a prostitute for a party at which she took drugs. His manslaughter conviction was upheld for his failure to get effective medical help. The duty of care arose despite the absence of traditional categories. There was a more generalised obligation to act which arose out of the particular facts of relationship. Like the case said the charge for the accused is
CASE: DPP V JOFFREY BARATHEON
My name is Daniel ogbonna and in this case I would be supporting the DPP.
Legal issues: That the court of appeal should hold a re-trial and use the de minims test.
Law: In this section we will be looking at the Actus reus and under this we will look at omission and causation the exceptions and we will also look at manslaughter.
An omission ‘a failure to act ‘that means when a person is bound to do or act but he omits to do the that or deliberately neglect it. Under this we have seven exception which are Common law duty to act, Contractual duty to act, Special relationship with the victim, Voluntary assumption of responsibility, Duty arising from defendants own conduct, Particular offences and …show more content…
This in our judgement means the whole man, not just the physical man. It does not lie in the mount of the assailant to say that his victim’s religious beliefs which inhibited him from accepting certain kinds of treatment were unreasonable. The question for decision is what caused her death. The answer is the stab wound’. Also in the case of R v Flynn (1987) Flynn was convicted of the manslaughter of Tracey, whom he had struck on the head with a stone. Tracey died four days after the incident, without, in the meantime, having visited a doctor. Flynn argued that Tracey’s conduct during those four days constituted a Novus actus interveniens. His argument was rejected by Pigot J in the central Criminal court who stated; If a man, who has received a serious blow or hurt, does not alter his ways in the account, but continues to go through the ordinary course of life which he has been accustomed to purse, that shall not exonerate the giver of blow from the his liability if such conduct has the effect of causing death. In other words, you take your victim as you find them and if your victim does not want medical treatment it is no argument to say failure treatment breaks the chain of causation. So in the case even if the victim refused to take food or medication it was up to the accused to call the hospital for help but he failed to do so. Even if he had no intention to kill the victim he had legal duty to perform. In this instance we have the case of R v Taktak (1988) the appellant hired a prostitute for a party at which she took drugs. His manslaughter conviction was upheld for his failure to get effective medical help. The duty of care arose despite the absence of traditional categories. There was a more generalised obligation to act which arose out of the particular facts of relationship. Like the case said the charge for the accused is