# data[].attributes.headline
Seminar 18 -u sing the example of R v White given on the lecture slides for Lecture 17, prepare an opening statement to the court as if you were the Lead Appellant. This statement should be between 1-5minutes long and include the following:► An introduction of yourself and three other students/people (you can choose names randomly if that would be easier!);► A brief summary of the facts and the decision at first instance;► A statement of the grounds of appeal and an indication of which ground you will be dealing and which ground your three other people will be dealing with.

# data[].attributes.subject
Seminar 18 -u sing the example of R v White given on the lecture slides for Lecture 17, prepare an opening statement to the court as if you were the Lead Appellant. This statement should be between 1-5minutes long and include the following:► An introduction of yourself and three other students/people (you can choose names randomly if that would be easier!);► A brief summary of the facts and the decision at first instance;► A statement of the grounds of appeal and an indication of which ground you will be dealing and which ground your three other people will be dealing with.

# data[].attributes.headline
Mr Henry White was tried at Nottingham Crown Court for the gross negligence manslaughter of Mr Aaron Davies. On 12 April 2018, Henry White and his flatmate, Aaron Davies frequented their local pub. Whilst there, Henry suggested to Aaron that he “try some E” (referring to MDMA drug commonly known as ecstasy). Aaron, unsure of what to do given that he had never taken drugs before, politely declined. Henry, however, considered Aaron to be a “wimp” and pestered him to take the drug. Eventually Aaron submitted to Henry’s pestering and consumed the drug. Feeling unwell, Aaron returned to his flat and fell asleep. The following day Henry knocked on Aaron’s door to discover that Aaron was in, what Henry described as, a “motionless state”. Henry, believing Aaron to simply be “hung over” and suffering the effects of the previous night, left him in his bedroom and decided to visit his family members back in his home town. Five days later, when Henry returned to the flat from his visit, he discovered that Aaron was dead. The cause of death was confirmed as resulting from complications from taking the drug and medical evidence shows that had Aaron been admitted to hospital the day following his consumption of the drug, he may have survived. At trial, the prosecution presented to the jury that Henry was liable for the offence because he had created a dangerous situation, which he had a duty to resolve because, following R v Evans [2009] 1 WLR 1999, he ought to have known of the risk. Alternatively, Henry was liable because of the special relationship he held with Aaron, having shared a flat for the past five years. The trial judge directed the jury on those terms. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Mr Henry White was tried at Nottingham Crown Court for the gross negligence manslaughter of Mr Aaron Davies. On 12 April 2018, Henry White and his flatmate, Aaron Davies frequented their local pub. Whilst there, Henry suggested to Aaron that he “try some E” (referring to MDMA drug commonly known as ecstasy). Aaron, unsure of what to do given that he had never taken drugs before, politely declined. Henry, however, considered Aaron to be a “wimp” and pestered him to take the drug. Eventually Aaron submitted to Henry’s pestering and consumed the drug. Feeling unwell, Aaron returned to his flat and fell asleep. The following day Henry knocked on Aaron’s door to discover that Aaron was in, what Henry described as, a “motionless state”. Henry, believing Aaron to simply be “hung over” and suffering the effects of the previous night, left him in his bedroom and decided to visit his family members back in his home town. Five days later, when Henry returned to the flat from his visit, he discovered that Aaron was dead. The cause of death was confirmed as resulting from complications from taking the drug and medical evidence shows that had Aaron been admitted to hospital the day following his consumption of the drug, he may have survived. At trial, the prosecution presented to the jury that Henry was liable for the offence because he had created a dangerous situation, which he had a duty to resolve because, following R v Evans [2009] 1 WLR 1999, he ought to have known of the risk. Alternatively, Henry was liable because of the special relationship he held with Aaron, having shared a flat for the past five years. The trial judge directed the jury on those terms. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Seminar 19 - Use the materials and examples given in the lecture in order to develop your submission. Think about what it is you’re wanting the court to do and, importantly, how you can persuade the court to do this

# data[].attributes.subject
Seminar 19 - Use the materials and examples given in the lecture in order to develop your submission. Think about what it is you’re wanting the court to do and, importantly, how you can persuade the court to do this

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
161 Regina Respondent v Miller Appellant

# data[].attributes.headline
Mr White was convicted of gross negligence manslaughter and now appeals to the Court of Appeal on the following grounds:1. That the learned judge misdirected the jury in terms of the circumstances when the duty to take reasonable steps to correct a dangerous situation arises by applying R v Evans [2009] 1 WLR 1999.2. In addition to the above, the learned judge misdirected the jury as to the duty by relationship,    extending the principle in R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918) 13 Cr App R 134. It was incorrect for the judge to extend the duty to cohabitees; the duty is restricted to blood relationships. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Mr White was convicted of gross negligence manslaughter and now appeals to the Court of Appeal on the following grounds:1. That the learned judge misdirected the jury in terms of the circumstances when the duty to take reasonable steps to correct a dangerous situation arises by applying R v Evans [2009] 1 WLR 1999.2. In addition to the above, the learned judge misdirected the jury as to the duty by relationship,    extending the principle in R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918) 13 Cr App R 134. It was incorrect for the judge to extend the duty to cohabitees; the duty is restricted to blood relationships. 

# data[].attributes.body
Using the example of R v White given on the lecture slides for Lecture 17, prepare an opening statement to the court as if you were the Lead Appellant. This statement should be between 1-5 minutes long and include the following:

► An introduction of yourself and three other students/people (you can choose names randomly if that would be easier!);

► A brief summary of the facts and the decision at first instance;

► A statement of the grounds of appeal and an indication of which ground you will be dealing and which ground your three other people will be dealing with.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Oxford University Press | Online Resource Centre | Multiple choice questions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Answer the following questions and then press 'Submit' to get your score.