Issue
In examining the criminal liability of the four persons about the death of Betty, several issues should be focused on approval or disapproval of any liability. In the case of Naveed, there is a need to prove whether he committed an actus reus in his threatening Betty. In the case of Peter, we need to establish under which circumstances and criminal law he might have been the causal link in the shooting, injury and eventual death of Betty. Also, there is a need to prove whether there was any state of mind with criminal liability and intent to cause the same. In the case of PC Patel, there was legal causation in the culpable act of shooting and injuring Betty. In the case of the doctor, the question of the law will be in deciding whether there were any omission and medical malpractice by not treating Betty when she was taken to her duty care.
Rule
For actus reus to be committed, the established law stature states there must be voluntary or involuntary body movements (Duttwiler, 2006). Since the threat made by Naveed was only verbal, the only culpability he has is the factual causation. His threat that he was going to break the neck of the deceased put Betty in a high distress. As a result, she jumped out of the moving car and consequently broke her wrist in the fall. From that point, it can be justified that if it were not for the actions of Naveed, Betty could not have jumped out of the moving car and taken hostage by Peter, who exposed her to the gunshots by PC Patel and eventual death due to the lack of medical attention of the doctor’s duty.
In the case of Peter, the principle of the third party breaking the chain of causation applies. He broke the causation action started with the threat of Naveed in the car. After taking Betty, hostage, he exposed her to the gun shots that PC Patel fired. Peter fired once attracting the attention of PC Patel, who consequently fired thrice and seriously wounding Betty.
The act was not foreseeable by Naveed; thus, the culpability of causation third party breaking lies to Peter. There is no information that PC Patel was aware of the presence of a hostage held by Peter. Also, Peter took his hostage down a long dark corridor where visibility was minimal; hence, making it impossible for PC Patel to identify the presence of Betty. PC Patel identified an armed suspect, who was shooting at a duty officer. He was justified under the police standing orders to shoot back at any armed suspect who threatens human life. PC Patel’s act lacked the Mens Rea mental intent to shoot knowingly, wound or cause the death of Betty. The policeman’s actus reus was also within legal means, as he was legally using a gun and aiming for an armed suspect.
For an act of omission to be committed, there must be a breach of duty for someone who has been given a duty to act by law imposition. The doctor in the case study was on duty on the night when Betty was brought into medical attention. Thus, the doctor was under the lawful duty to act by dispensing medical help to any patient, who came or was brought to the hospital while he was still on duty.
Analysis
In R v Stone & Dobinson (1977) QB 354, the court upheld that Stone and his spouse were liable for the death of Stone’s sister whom they had incurred a duty to care for after taking her into their house, but failed to summon help when her condition worsened. Although the two were not officially under the legal duty to dispense medical help, they share the principle of duty liability for a dependant incapacitated by illness.
The act of omission in the case of the doctor involved a voluntary nonperformance of bodily movement. By sleeping with knowledge that there was a patient whose condition required his professional services, he purposefully neglected duty by absence. The actus reus caused the death of Betty. This principle application can be upheld under the knowledge that the doctor did not suffer from any disease or condition, which would cause unavoidable sleep (Clarkson & Cunningham, 2008).
The reason provided for the doctor’s sleep was that of ‘feeling so tired’. Fundamentally, it might have been admissible if the doctor was in the state of sleep before the arrival of Betty. In Hill v, Baxter, Kilmuir, LC, the ruling held that sleep, in the context of automatism, can be defined as the existence of behavior in which the person is not aware or has no conscious control Haleṿi, 2012). The doctor was aware of the emergency and had prepared for the same. Also, he had the knowledge and awareness that he was the only doctor on duty; thus, responsible for treating any patient brought in while he was on duty.
Conclusion
The court would find that Betty had a chance of living having accessed a hospital with a professional doctor on duty. Naveed was not criminally responsible for the cause of death since his actions resulted in an action, which was broken by a third party, Peter. Peter has a criminal liability as he knowingly exposed Betty to police fire by holding her as a hostage. PC Patel was acting within the law and unaware of a second person in the dark corridor. The criminal liability of Betty’s death will, therefore, be held on Peter for Novus actus interveniens and the doctor for omission while on duty.
References
Clarkson, C. & Cunningham, S. (2008). Criminal liability for non-aggressive death. Aldershot, Hants, England: Ashgate.
Duttwiler, M. (2006). Liability for Omission in International Criminal Law. International Criminal Law Review, 6(1), 1-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/157181206777066745
Haleṿi, G. (2012). The matrix of derivative criminal liability. Heidelberg: Springer.
