I ADVICE TO THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS ABOUT JON’S CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR ANY OFFENCES COMMITTED AGAINST RAB A Intentionally Causing Serious Injury 1 Serious Injury The first element of s.16 is the actus reus. The question is did Rab suffer a serious injury. By definition in the Crime Act 1958: an injury includes unconsciousness, hysteria, pain and any substantial impairment of bodily function. Rab was unconscious for half an hour and was presumably in pain from being hit in the head. This substantiates the conclusion that he did suffer an injury, however, the question is whether he suffered a serious injury. Subsection 15 in the Act states that a serious injury is an injury (or an accumulation of injuries) that ‘endanger life’ or is ‘substantial and protracted’ . There is no formal test to distinguish between an injury and a serious injury and the decision is left wholly to the jury. Rab’s unconsciousness qualifies as an injury under s15 definition but with the addition …show more content…
McHugh J went further to say identify that there is no on single test for causation in homicide. The element of causation within the framework of this case will be a significant challenge to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The DPP should begin by looking at the ‘but for’ test and a major problem arises since the victim was already running through the streets, would the harm not have occurred if not for the Fergus’s wrongdoing? The defence can argue that yes the harm could have happened without Fergus’s actions. Sal was already in harms way by running through a busy metropolitan area and not adhering to the rules of the road. The DPP can state though the victim was already running, at the time she was hit by the taxi, she was trying to escape the crowd that had formed from Fergus’s actions. Mason CJ
Given the facts of the case were not of contention, the events of that night the court heard were what appeared to be instantaneous and had the respondent not taken his eyes off the road for those mere 4 seconds the same outcome is likely to have
This test involves the “suggestion that “but for” the negligent act of the defendant, the plaintiff would have not have suffered the injury” (Blay 2010.) Hence, but for the negligence of Jordan McLean lifting Alex in tackle, he would not have become permanently injured. This translates to the fact that we at NRL were not responsible for this injury and in fact did not breach the duty of care that we indirectly owed him. Rather Alex should be seeking damages from who was at fault, in this case, Mr McLean. Furthermore, as the tackle was on field, in a clear contact sport, the NRL 2015 Edition of the rule book clarifies matters regarding player misconduct – shifting the cause of Alex’s injuries to Jordan McLean. Section 15, 1a, states that “a player is guilty of misconduct if he: makes contact with the head or neck of an opponent intentionally, recklessly, or carelessly” (National Rugby League
On the morning of the 17th of May 2005, Nola Walker was involved in a two vehicle motor accident. She had just dropped her son off at his new job, when she ignored a give way sign at an intersection. When the ambulance arrived the officers, Nucifora and Blake, recall Walker being “able to converse” and “orientated”. Blake conducted multiple assessments and did her vital signs twice. The results deemed Walker to be within normal ranges, with the only noticeable trauma involving superficial skin injuries on the left hand, an abrasion over the right clavicle which was assumed to be a seatbelt injury. Ms Walker denied she was ever in pain. Nucifora mentioned on several occasions that it would be best to take Walker to the hospital to be further
This language made is favorable for the jury to consider Dr. Ricketson’s negligence as not foreseeable. The rule for the NIED claim relates to “the alleged actual injury is for psychological distress alone,” and NIED claim achieves compensation for “persons who have sustained emotional injuries attributable to the wrongful conduct of others.” (Iturralde, 2013) Which would apply to Rosalinda because she was Aurturo’s caregiver.
Note and answer to yourself, the factor that are involved at the incident, the mechanisms and circumstances on the injury, as well as the extent and type of injury. Assessing the situation identify what happened, a number of people involved, as their age, there is a child and or elderly.
On June 7th 2008, Sarah May Ward was arrested for the murder of Eli Westlake after she ran him over in a motor vehicle in St. Leonards. Prior to the incident the offender had been driving the wrong way down Christine Lane which was a one way street. Whilst this was occurring she was intoxicated, under the influence of marijuana, valium, and ecstasy and was unlicensed to drive. The victim and his brother who were also intoxicated, where walking down the lane and where nearly hit by the offender. This prompted the victim to throw cheese balls at the car and make a few sarcastic remarks regarding her driving ability. After a brief confrontation between the two parties the victim and his brother turned away and proceeded to walk down Lithgow Street. The offender followed the victim into the street and drove into him while he was crossing a driveway.
In December, 2011, two years after the unpleasant homicide of Wayne Boyce, the evidence collected for this particular crime suggested Prima Facie existing in the allegations made. The case then went to trial in the NSW Supreme Court of Australia. Where A 19 year old teenager referred by the initials of his name AH as he was a juvenile, pleaded guilty towards the manslaughter of Mr Wayne Boyce, 23 years of age.
After sifting through the evidence, the culprit of the accident can be determined. The accident occurred on 7:45 AM on the date of September 11, 2001. At at stoplight, four cars were stopped, but a car accident occurred. Based on prior evidence from other cases, the back car is usually the culprit. Dr. Otto Mobile’s interview shows that he was not in a rush, going to lecturing a class, and he was behind a dancing woman, presumably dancing to music. Also, Ken Notstop was not in a rush as well and he was part of a tree business. Following Ken, Kelly Sion was interviewed, showing that she had a song stuck in her head. Due to the fact she wanted to exercise before she was supposed to open the gym, she was in a rush.. Anita Newcar was in a rush due to the fact that she was already late to work, and she was behind a car with trees and a nest on the back. Due to the fact that Kelly had a song stuck in her head, she could’ve been the woman dancing in a car that Dr. Otto Mobile mentioned, showing that she was in front of Otto. Because Ken was the only person
That night, many witnesses reported having seen a man changing the tire of his van and waving any possible help away angrily while others reported seeing a woman wandering around the side of the dangerous highway. More witnesses reported that Kenneth and his wife were having many violent disputes at their home that usually resulted in Kenneth pursuing an angry Yvonne around the block. The most compelling evidence against Mathison, however, is purely scientific. Detective Paul Ferreira first noticed that the extensive blood stains inside the Mathison van. After hearing Mathison’s original account, he summoned the assistance of famed forensic expert Dr. Henry Lee to analyze what he thought was inconsistent evidence. Blood stains on the paneling and the spare tire in the cargo area reveal low-velocity blood stains meaning that the blood probably dripped from Yvonne’s head onto the floor. The stains found on the roof and steering wheel were contact transfer patterns probably caused by Mathison’s bloody hands. Blood stains on the driver’s side of the van were contact-dripping patterns which indicate that Mathison touched the inside of the van multiple times before and after moving his wife’s body. The final groups of blood stains on the instrument panel of the van were medium-velocity stains which show investigators that Mathison probably struck his wife at least once in the front seat causing the blood to fly from her open head wound. The enormous amounts of blood inside the van lead prosecutor Kurt Spohn to investigate the Mathison case as a murder instead of a misdemeanor traffic violation.
...nsed, disqualified or uninsured driving: Blameless driving and the scope of legal causation. Journal of Criminal Law, 78(1), 16-21. doi: 10.1350
The first ground is that the learned sheriff did some error in law by charging the expense of physiotherapy treatment which is said to have happened after the recovery from accident related symptoms. The second ground is the sheriff made error in law by including travelling expenses relating to the physiotherapy appointments. The pursuer's medical records also showed that the pursuer had a history of neck pain together with lower back pain even before the accident occurred. This made things more complicated to evaluate with accuracy because it is difficult to be sure whether the pain occurred from the accident or due to pre-existing damage. To determine the extent of the injury caused by the accident, two orthopedic surgeons, Mr Mohil and Mr McKay has examined the pursuer.
The actus reus and causation are the first elements that need to be satisfied. The defendant, Harry in this case must be proved to have caused the victim’s death. In this instance two matters need to be considered. Whether the defendant in fact caused the victim’s death and if so, if it can he be held to have caused it in the eyes of the law. Regarding causation in law, in R v Smith [1959] 2 QB 35 it was held that ‘the defendant’s act would be regarded as the cause in Law, if it could be shown that it was the operating and substantial cause of death,’ which we see here. It is clearly illustrated that Harry in fact, caused William’s death instantly by driving the lemon slicer into his heart. According to the Court of Appeal in R v Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279 and R v Cheshire [1991] 1 WLR 844 the issue of factual causation is mainly one for the jury once it has been determined by the courts that there is enough evidence to be left to them and this can be established through the ‘but for’ test. However there appears to be no issues regarding causation in this case because William’s death is caused instantly by Harry.
The defendant was a jealous woman who had been romantically involved with a man, Mr Jones, who had then gone on to have a relationship with another woman, Ms Booth, who he later became engaged to in the spring of 1971. The defendant, as a result, went to Ms Booth’s home and poured petrol through her letterbox, she then put newspaper, which she set on fire through also. This quickly ignited and the defendant went straight home without alerting anyone to the blaze, which was spreading. Although Ms Booth and her son were able to escape through a window, her two daughters perished, as they were asphyiciated by the fumes from the flames, which were engulfing their house as they slept. The defendant argued that she was not guilty of murder as she did not intend on causing harm or killing anyone, she had just wanted to frighten Ms Booth and as a result should only be found guilty of manslaughter.
Murder is a common law offence that requires proof that the defendant caused the death of the victim with the requisite mens rea. On the facts, there is no doubt that Chrisitne caused Victor's death. The mens rea of murder is satisfied by the prosecution proving that Christine intended to kill or intended to cause grievous bodily harm at the time of the act (R v Moloney [1985] 1 All ER 1025). After Woollin [1999] AC 82, the jury should be directed that they
The Act allows negligence as the sole ground unlike common law which required the claimant to establish ‘fraud’ even if negligence existed. It is believed that the ‘d...