and arguing. After a few more minutes of this, in a ‘moment of madness’, Jack pushes Daniel over. This causes Daniel to hit his head on the concrete surface of the car park, knocking him unconscious. Jack is arrested by a passing off-duty police officer, who also calls an ambulance. In the ambulance, Daniel is not secured properly and falls on the floor twice during the journey to hospital. At the hospital, he is found to have suffered a skull fracture and internal bleeding. He has surgery in order to save his life. This is initially successful. Two days later though, the wounds from where the surgeon had made incisions during the procedure become infected and he dies.

Discuss the potential criminal liability of Jack for the death of Daniel

Unlawful act manslaughter

Unlawful act

Criminal offence which D would have been charged with had V not died, GBH s.18. Battery - unlawful application of force (Collins v Wilcock)

MR - Intention or subj recklessness (Venna) - Intended to apply force. ~DPP v Newbury - Deliberate - yes. Then unlawful act (AR & MR - Lamb).

Lowe (has to be an act)

The unlawful act was dangerous

Church – ‘sober and reasonable person…the risk of some harm’

DPP v Newbury-  don’t have to prove the accused knew the act was unlawful or dangerous

JM + SM – ‘some harm’

Prosecution – clear that some harm would have been caused, doesn’t matter the extent, JM + SM

Defence- church, sober and reasonable person would have reacted angrily and pushed someone in that circumstances

Unlawful act was the cause of death

Causation

Factual- R v White – But for the defendants action the victim would not have died

Legal- Pagett- defendant was more than minimal cause of the death

Smith- operating and substantial cause of death

However, the intervening act of the 3^rd party medical intervention may be applicable, was the surgery and then the later infection enough for 3^rd party intervention

Prosecution

Cheshire- has to be extraordinary or unusual negligence

It was still related to the initial injury so medical negligence was not great enough.

Defence

Jordan – ‘palpably wrong’

The medical negligence was so separate that it caused a break in the chain of causation. Distinguished - injury had healed whereas in the instant case it is still operating.

1- a unlawful act /crime was committed

- satisfied as jack deliberately pushes Daniel over = battery (unlawful application of force)

2- the act was dangerous

• R v church - ‘ sober and reasonable person would realise the risk of some harm, not necessarily serious harm’

• Jack would have the knowledge that pushing someone over could potentially lead to harm or danger

• Therefore the act can be seen as dangerous

3- the act caused death

• Daniel dies after suffering the fall, falling twice in the ambulance and from his wounds becoming infected after a initially successful surgery

• Need factual + legal causation

• Factual causation-But for test- but for jacks push, Daniel would not have suffered any of the injuries

• Legal causation -break in the chain

4- deliberate/intentional act- but not that the consequences were intended

• men’s rea - intention or recklessness as to applying unlawful force on another

• Satisfied here as jack intentionally pushes Daniel over, out of frustration

• Does not matter that he did not have the intention of killing him