# data[].attributes.body
Base offence - Assault - Intentionally or subjective recklessly causing the victim to apprehend the application of immediate unlawful violence.(Fagan)

Derek broke into the house and then he threatened Vincent with a shotgun. Monica’s death was due to a heart attack caused by shock. Prosecution would argue although no intention to cause Monica to apprehend, he was reckless (ie there was unjustified risk) that pointing a gun in a family home is likely to lead to other members of the household apprehending harm ie that they would be shot.

Although Vincent didn't apprehend harm as he knew the gun wasn't loaded, the fact that he intended the assault and in fact Monica apprehended the harm could be argued to be transferred malice (Latimer)

A reasonable person would foresee that breaking in the house and threatening someone would cause a person, especially an 80-year-old person, to die from shock.

R v Church - Objective test: assault with a gun could foreseeably cause shock, especially to someone elderly. - Watson. Prosecution could also argue - he thought the gun was loaded and the victim could have tried to escape. The physical harm that actually occurred doesn't need to be foreseen as long as some physical harm was foreseen (JM & SM)

Actus reus- committing an unlawful act- pointing the gun, threatening Vincent - Monica seeing this and leading to Monica's death- the doing of the crime.

# data[].attributes.body
Base offence - assault as above.

Wilma died instantly from an unrelated, undiagnosed heart condition however this was not caused by Derek's actions - Defence will argue that there was no factual causation, the cause of death was independent of Derek . Hence, causation fails and Derek is not liable for Wilma's death. Prosecution will argue that had she not had a gun in front of her she wouldn't have been put under stress leading to heart failure. Legal causation - Pagett - as long as not de minimis and contribution to the death.

Break in the chain - egg shell skull (blaue)

In terms of dangerousness, the act must have been dangerous to Wilma specifically however the act was clearly dangerous under Church. Defence would rely on Carey.

# data[].attributes.body
DPP v Newbury -> sets out requirements: criminal act, act caused death, act was dangerous

1. Deliberate criminal act

battery - application of unlawful personal violence (Collins v Wilcock)

Lamb, the actus reus and mens rea needs to be present

actus reus - derek pushing vincent

mens rea -Intention or subjective recklessness as to applying force (Venna) derek intended to push vincent

2. caused death

factual - White - but for test

but for derek pushing vincent, he would not have lost balance and fell over, hitting his head which caused internal bleeding

legal - Pagett - more than di minimis

derek pushing vincent over was the substantial and operating cause of his internal bleeding that lead to his death = Smith

novus actus interveniens -> medical negligence

prosecution = argues that the vincent had died from untreated internal bleeding, which he had before entering the hospital. Cheshire - the negligence has to be 'extraordinary and unusual' or 'so potent' breaks chain. Medical negligence is generally not extraordinary. The injection didn't cause the death, it was internal bleeding which was caused by the defendant.

defence = the medical negligence was palpably wrong Jordan

3. it was dangerous

Church, all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise it would subject the victim to the risk of some harm albeit not serious. there only needs to be a risk of some harm. Application - pushed his in a kitchen with lots of hard surfaces.

# data[].attributes.body
Vincent woke up one night by the sound of breaking glass from the kitchen. He went downstairs, turned on the light, and saw a man (Derek) in his kitchen, who had clearly broken a window to gain entry. Hearing Vincent approach, Derek quickly picked up a shotgun he had found lying on the kitchen table and shouted: “Don’t come any nearer, or I’ll shoot”. Vincent continued to walk towards Derek as he knew

that he had left the gun unloaded when he had finished cleaning it earlier that evening.

Vincent’s 80-year old mother, Monica, and wife, Wilma, then arrived in the kitchen, as they too had been woken by the noise. When Monica saw what was happening, she collapsed on the floor. Vincent turned around to attend to his mother and Derek used this opportunity to push him away. Vincent lost his balance, fell, and hit his head against the cooker which rendered him unconscious, with dangerous internal bleeding. Seeing what had happened to her husband, Wilma also collapsed. Meanwhile, hearing the noise, a neighbour had called emergency services. Derek was arrested at the scene. Derek, Monica and Wilma were put in ambulances.

Monica died on the way to hospital and medical evidence confirms that she died as a result of a heart attack caused by the shock. Wilma was found to have already died

the moment she collapsed at the house, as a result of an unrelated and undiagnosed heart condition.

Vincent was taken to the hospital emergency department and left on a trolley, in the care of Dr Watson. Dr Watson had been coming to the end of a long and tiring nightshift, having already worked multiple night shifts over the previous few days. In what he later claimed was a ‘moment of madness’, Dr Watson administered some incorrect medication and was then called away to deal with another urgent patient. Dr Watson then forgot all about Vincent. By the time another member of staff discovered him, it was too late. Vincent died from the untreated internal bleeding.

Discuss Derek and Dr Watson’s liability for manslaughter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Involuntary Manslaughter Unlawful Act Manslaughter Gross Negligence Manslaughter DPP v Newbury Adomako Duty of Care Gross Negligence and a crime Causation Intention Adomako Lord Mackay Egg Shell - AG Ref No. 2 1999 - R v DPP exp Jones - Rowley v DPP Factual Blaue Ordinary