Criminal - Seminar 13 - SW201 - Jake by Claire Turner https://padlet.com/claire43/kusj1tx5pf3w en-us 2016-10-18 14:15:31 UTC 2025-04-24 08:21:03 UTC hello@padlet.com Consider the following facts:Jake had rented a flat above a takeaway shop with his girlfriend Karen and their new baby, Chrissie. The flat was constantly noisy because of the customers who stood outside talking while waiting for their food. Jake had complained to the owner of the building, Ted, who also ran the takeaway, but Ted said he could do nothing about the noise and Jake would have to “live with it”. Both Karen and Jake were often tired because of the noise and from being disturbed by Chrissie’s frequent waking.One night, Jake got up to feed Chrissie. Tired and wanting to go back to bed, he decided to use water from the tap to make up Chrissie’s milk, rather than boiling the kettle and letting the boiled water cool as the health visitor had told them. The next day, Chrissie became very ill with a gastrointestinal condition and died as a result.Consumed by grief, Jake decided to try and address the noise issue himself. He constructed a huge ply-wood sign requesting customers be quieter when queuing and propped it up outside the takeaway. Unfortunately, the sign wasn’t well secured and, when a gust of wind blew, it flew up and hit a customer, Daniel, on the head.Ted came out of the shop to see what had happened, spotted Jake at the flat window and ordered him to come downstairs to explain his actions. Karen said she would go and calm Ted down, but when she reached for the light switch in the staircase she was electrocuted and died immediately. It was discovered later that the electrical wiring was faulty and Jake had asked Ted to call an electrician but Ted had refused.As a result of his head injury Daniel fell unconscious and was rushed to hospital. The hospital was very busy that day and Daniel was left for some time in a corridor awaiting treatment. When the doctor came back to check on Daniel he was found to have died as a result of a blood clot on his brain.Consider Jake and Ted’s criminal liability if any, for involuntary manslaughter. claire43 https://padlet.com/claire43/kusj1tx5pf3w/wish/1100923920 2021-01-19 12:34:21 UTC https://padlet.com/claire43/kusj1tx5pf3w/wish/1100923920 Count 1 - Chrissie's death claire43 https://padlet.com/claire43/kusj1tx5pf3w/wish/1998221498 2022-01-18 15:26:17 UTC https://padlet.com/claire43/kusj1tx5pf3w/wish/1998221498 Count 2 - Daniel's death claire43 https://padlet.com/claire43/kusj1tx5pf3w/wish/1998222591 2022-01-18 15:26:34 UTC https://padlet.com/claire43/kusj1tx5pf3w/wish/1998222591 Count 3 - Karen's death claire43 https://padlet.com/claire43/kusj1tx5pf3w/wish/1998223561 2022-01-18 15:26:53 UTC https://padlet.com/claire43/kusj1tx5pf3w/wish/1998223561 Chrissie https://padlet.com/claire43/kusj1tx5pf3w/wish/1998239111 Duty of care – parent/child Wiloughby

Breach – Yes – he was told by the by the health visitor how he should do it and he failed to do it. Reasonable parent in that position would follow the advice of a health professional. Defence argue - a reasonable parent in that position wouldn't see the risk of putting water in a bottle - therefore no breach.

Serious and obvious risk of death – reasonably prudent person would have foreseen a risk of illness/injury but not a risk of death.

Misra [2004] EWCA 2375  - The breach of duty must involve a risk of death – a risk of injury is insufficient. Brown (Uriah) - High risk of death

Singh [1999] Crim LR 582). – A reasonably prudent person would have foreseen a serious and obvious risk, not merely of injury, even serious injury, but death.

Cannot be liable based upon hindsight - Rose [2017] EWCA Crim 1168

Causation – Yes – the illness and therefore death was caused by Jake’s negligence. Question? factual - White, but-for, Legal - Smith; Kimsey - operating and substantial cause of the death.

Gross negligence – Having regard to the risk of death involved, the conduct of the defendant was SO Bad all the circumstances as to amount in their judgement to a criminal act or omission. (Lord MacKay - Adomako). State of mind - AG Ref No. 2 1999 - relevant to the grossness of the crime (objective).

]]> 2022-01-18 15:32:15 UTC https://padlet.com/claire43/kusj1tx5pf3w/wish/1998239111 isabellabb1 https://padlet.com/claire43/kusj1tx5pf3w/wish/1998256837 Jakes sign falling on Daniel’s head which caused him to have a blood clot resulting in death: 

  1. Duty of care 
  • Jake owed a duty of care when putting up the sign, for it to not harm others around the area. Him putting up the sign negligently means his conduct falls below the standards of a reasonable person so much so that criminal liability should be imposed. 
  • Adomako

  1. Breach of the duty of care 
  • A reasonable competent person putting up a sign would make sure it is secure so it would not fall down and damage anyone or anything. 


  1. Risk of death
  • A reasonable person in Jake’s shoes could appreciate hanging a sign outside a shop where people normally gather could cause serious harm and perhaps death if it did fall down. 
  • Mark [2004] EWCA Crim 2490 – the test requires the reasonable person standing in the defendant’s shoes to appreciate the risk.
  • Misra - breach of duty must involve a risk of death - was there an apparent risk of death ?
  • Singh 
Depends on how high the sign was and its size, but reasonably you wouldn't expect a sign to involve a risk of death. 

  1. Causation 
  • Jake negligently putting up the sign has resulted in Dan’s injury and blood clot. 
  • The hospital negligently leaving Dan unattended could break the chain in causation. If had received medical treatment earlier he may not have died from his blood clot. Factual - White - But-For - yes. Legal - Smith - operating and substantial cause of the death, but break in the chain of causation? Defence - Jordan - Palpably wrong treatment Prosecution - Cheshire; Smith.

  1. Gross negligence 
  • Jake’s actions showed a disregard for life and safety of others as a reasonable person could have foreseen putting a sign negligently could cause harm or death. 
  • Bateman (1925) 19 Cr App R 8 – the criminal standard “went beyond a matter of mere compensation between subjects and showed such a disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the state and conduct deserving of punishment.”


Jake could be liable for involuntary manslaughter. However, if it was deemed the hospital negligently left Dan without medical attention for too long this could break the chain of causation.

------------------------------

Karen getting electrocuted and dying due to Ted refusing to call an electrician even when advised by Jake to: 

  1. Duty of care owed 
  • Ted owed a duty of care as the landlord/owner of the building to make sure the property was safe. 
  • Jake had warned Ted about this but Ted had done nothing – therefore Adomako - the ratio in this case is the person’s conduct is grossly negligent if it falls below the standards of reasonable people to the extent that criminal liability should be imposed.
  • However, could Jake have rung up instead of Ted?

  1. Breach of duty of care
  • There has been as Ted should have made sure the property he was renting or letting was safe. 

  1. A risk of death
  • It is foreseeable that if the electrics are not working properly and they are in continuous use that someone may be electrocuted and die. 
  • Singh [1999] Crim LR 582).  – the circumstances must be such that a reasonably prudent person would have foreseen a serious and obvious risk, not merely of injury even serious injury but of death. 

  1. Causation 
  • Ted’s negligent omission of failing to get the electrics sorted caused Karen to get electrocuted and die. 
  • But for his omission she would not have been electrocuted and died. 

  1. Gross negligence 
  • Ted’s actions showed a disregard for the life and safety of others… 
  • Bateman (1925) 19 Cr App R 8 – the criminal standard “went beyond a matter of mere compensation between subjects and showed such a disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the state and conduct deserving of punishment.”


Ted should be liable for involuntary manslaughter unless it can be proved that Jake could have rung the electrics company (though he did not own the building). 



]]> 2022-01-18 15:37:42 UTC https://padlet.com/claire43/kusj1tx5pf3w/wish/1998256837