Criminal - Seminar 18 - CR203 by Claire Turner

Kirsty's Mooting Lecture

claire43 — 2024-02-27 13:23:22 UTC

Omissions

claire43 — 2024-02-27 13:23:28 UTC

R v Evans

claire43 — 2024-02-27 13:23:31 UTC

Stone v Dobinson

claire43 — 2024-02-27 13:23:35 UTC

R v Miller

claire43 — 2024-02-27 13:23:39 UTC

2024-02-27 13:34:00 UTC

Representing the respondent

Court – court of appeal

Appellant – Mr White

~~Question the court is trying to determine:~~ The duty of care to another person extends to cohabitees (living in same house), as stated in R v Gibbins, ~~meaning that Mr White has liability for Aaron’s death.~~ Duty of care is not restricted to blood relationships as they were living in the same house and were long term cohabitants , so a duty of care still applies

On behalf of the respondent, following the judgement of R v Miller (1983), it is clear that the appellant created a dangerous situation by offering the narcotics to the victim and which consequently put him under a duty of care for her since, it was his actions of giving the substance and the omission to not look after her wellbeing which accelerated the situation, as in a reasonable person would have tried to prevent the situation from escalating.

2024-02-27 13:40:22 UTC

2024-02-27 13:45:30 UTC

The duty of care to another person extends to cohabitees (living in same house), as stated in R v Gibbins. Duty is not restricted to blood relationships as they were living in the same house (long term cohabitants) so a duty of care still applies.

In the situation where a person is aware of the danger of the health and welfare of a person and decides to recklessly disregard the risk to that persons life, then that person has failed to provide a duty of care therefore they should be liable – r v stone.