Applied Law - QCF (Edexcel)

A.R & M.R

Reviewed cases

In the first case I reviewed the defendant attacked the victim with an iron bar intentionally, the wounds were fatal so therefore the victim needed major surgery, during the surgery the surgeons were medically negligent and caused the oxygen tube to become disconnected from the victim, this caused the victim significant brain damage, the cuts to the victims face were voluntary and intentional so therefore actus reus does apply as they are liable for the damage caused even it it was more severe than originally intended but although the defendant is definitely guilty, because of the chain of causation is broken by medical negligence the defendant isn't guilty for the brain damage, if you apply the but for test you soon realise that medical negligence caused the victims brain damage, not the defendant under charge. This case very much relates to the well known case R v Cheshire (1991) , in this case the victim was intentionally shot by the defendant, like in this case where the victim was hit with an iron bar, and in both cases the victim got sent into surgery as a result and both victims died from medical negligence and not from the injuries the defendant caused so therefore in both cases the defendant is irresponsible.

In the second case I reviewed the defendant shot pellets from a gun he owned out of the window to see how far they would go, due to him committing this act the victim in the case, a young girl was struck twice, the defendant did not intend to hit anyone, actus reus doest apply in this case as the defendant voluntarily shot the gun and but for the defendants acts the victim would not have sustained their injuries, there is no break in the chain of causation and they are liable for the damage caused even it it was more severe than originally intended . Mens reus does apply because although the defendant did not intend to shoot or hurt anyone, it was reckless act, foreseeable that it could potentially cause harm to someone and the defendant did not act in the way a reasonable man should of due to this the defendant is guilty for any harm caused to the victim from the pellet gun. This case reminds me of the well known case R v Cunningham (1957), in this case the defendant ripped a gas meter off the wall in order to steal the money from inside, as a result of these he caused the victim in the neighbouring property to get carbon monoxide poisoning and as a result died, this is similar to the case above due to the reckless acts of both defendants, they didn't intend to kill their victims but their foreseeable actions and reckless behaviour caused the death of their victims making them responsible.

In the third case I reviewed the defendant stopped at a pedestrian crossing in his car to let the victim's family cross the road, while the defendant was stopped another car crashed into the back of the defendants', despite the defendant having his brakes on, the defendants' car went crashing into the victim and the victims family, the hit knocked down the victim. Actus reus doesn't apply in this case as the defendant unintentionally and involuntarily hit the victim, the defendant was following road rules so therefore the defendant was not guilty due to this being an involuntary action the defendant had no control over. I have noticed that this case is very similar to the case of Hill v Baxter (1958), in this case the defendant was found not guilty for dangerous driving as he had a blackout, because of this actus reus is applicable, the case is quite similar to this case as both defendants are not responsible as they prove actus reus.