Criminal Law. Problem Question. R v Danny Johnson Essay

Criminal Law. Problem Question. R v Danny Johnson - Essay Example The burden of prove lies on the shoulder of the defendant concerning cause of death of the victim. Here, mentioned points are worth consideration: a) whether the defendant responsible for the victim's death b) can he be caught in accordance with law c) whether the victim’s death cause of inflicted injury or some other intervening act d) whether the victim receive proper medical treatment e) whether the attempted escape of defendant cause victim’s death. In this respect we may cite here the case of R v White [1910] 2 KB 124. The defendant diluted poison in his mother’s glass but she died due to heart failure. The cause of death was heart failure and not the intake of the poisonous drink. He was tried and convicted of attempted murder2. In another case of R v Smith [1959] 2 QB 35, it was held that the defendant's operating and substantial cause of death is the cause in Law. There are circumstances wherein the intervening acts of the defendant attributes to the caus e of death of a victim. As per law, defendant cannot be accountable provided the victim died due to the acts of other’s misdeed. It does not mean that in every case of intervening acts that cause the death of a victim, defendant will be absolved from its liability. Following grounds can be considered to get hold of the defendant causing death of a person: a) if the death caused to multiple reasons wherein the defendant’s role was operating and substantial, he / she will be liable for punishment under the law. Let us examine the case of R v Malcherek (1981) 73 Cr App R 173. Wherein the woman had received fatal injuries for which she had to place on the life supporting machine. Taking into account the clinical death and found no hope of recovery, doctors decided to disconnect the life supporting machine that caused her to death within half an hour. The defendant charged with attempted murder, tried and awarded death sentence. He subsequently went on to appeal against the judgment of the trial court to the Court of Appeal on the plea that the doctors had broken the cycle of life by deliberately switching off the life supporting machine. The plea was dismissed. It was held by the Court of Appeal that since the operating and substantial factors involved that cause the death of wounded woman which was initially inflicted upon by the defendant. The court was of the view that since the role of life supporting machine was confined to keep the injuries in suspension, therefore, as soon as the machine went off the original wounds came on the surface causing death of wounded woman3. Apart from the above, the badly wounded person may succumb to injuries as a natural consequence of the defendant acts. In the mentioned scenario the defendant got hold of death. Suppose a person is attacked and left in the lurch on the road side. The attacker will be liable for punishment if the wounded person dies of oozing out blood, for infectious wounds of him, run over by th e speedy vehicle. The other way round, defendant would not be accountable provided he / she killed by another murderer or killed under the debris of a collapsible building due to hell of a tremor. Nonetheless where Human intervention meant for self-preservation / in execution of a legal duty does not hamper the chain of cause of incident. Study of the case of R v Paget (1983) 76 Cr App R 279