Case Study Of Alfred, Emily, And Buzfuz's Case

1080 Words 5 Pages
1 a) There are significant charges that could be laid against Alfred, Emily, and Buzfuz. The charges of failure to preserve their child’s life are laid against Alfred and Emily because the parents showed disregard for the safety of their son Job. Alfred and Emily have a duty imposed by the law as parents to provide the necessaries of life to their son under “s. 215(1)” to ensure that their young son Job receives his daily insulin injections in order to benefit his health. This implies that the failure to implement the duty disregards the health of their son to whom the duty is owed, and causes Job to be in a state of unconsciousness. The charges of manslaughter by criminal negligence [s. 222(5)(b)] will also be laid against Alfred and Emily due to their reckless disregard against their son Job. Manslaughter by criminal negligence [s. 222(5)(b)] …show more content…
For example, Alfred and Emily didn’t foresee Job’s death when they didn’t provide the insulin injection to Job because they thought that Job was cured from diabetes. This case remains significant to the “Roks (2011)” case because Roks also lacked the subjective foresight that someone would die from his activities. Roks was charged with second degree murder [s. 231(7)] and conspiracy to commit arson [s. 465], but Roks was only involved in the plot to burn down a building. Roks argued that he didn’t subjectively foresee the consequences of death because he was only aware that a building would be destroyed without any causality, which proves that he lacked subjective mens rea so he was acquitted from the charges. This conveys that Alfred and Emily could also contend that they didn’t subjectively foresee the death of Job when they didn’t provide the insulin injection that signifies that Alfred and Emily lack the mens rea for their criminal negligence that indirectly caused the death of

Related Documents