Mark’s Death
Causation
An unbroken link between the D’s conduct and the consequence proved beyond reasonable doubt is required.
Factual Causation
D will not be liable for V’s death if V would have died regardless of the D’s conduct (White). But for Paul’s attack, Mark would not die. Factual causation is fulfilled.
Legal Causation
The cause of death should be substantial and operational. For substantial, D’s act must contribute to the result to a significant extent (Cheshire). Mark’s attack was more than a slight or trifling cause and thus fulfills the test (Kinsey).
For operational, the causation chain should not be broken (Rafferty). Medical negligence is unlikely to break the chain unless ‘in itself so potent in causing death’ (Cheshire) or it is ‘palpably wrong’ (Jordan). Jordan involved a positive administration of drugs while the Cheshire involved only omission. Omission would not normally amount to an intervening act (Morby). Thus, the doctor’s omission would not break the causation.
Also, in Jordan, the V was virtually healed, and the treatment was abnormal and grossly negligent. This was not the case for Mark.
As such, causation is established.
It was criticized by Sullivan and Simester (2012) that the causation rule is policy-driven and the underlying principle of the rule is not strong nowadays. Glanville William (1983) stated that the legal causation is indeed an “imputable causation”.
Murder
Paul could be charged with murder.
AR
Murder is the unlawful killing of a person in the queen’s peace with malice aforethought (Cunningham). Since Mark is killed by Paul in peace time, this AR is fulfilled.
MR
Direct intention required that it was D’s aim or purpose to cause death or serious harm (Moloney). Jury may find that there could be direct intention depending on the nature of Paul’s attack (e.g. force and number of blows).
Alternatively, oblique intent could be found when death or grievous bodily harm (GBH) was a virtually certain consequence of D’s act (objective test) and D foresaw it (subjective test) (Woollin). The jury is likely to find oblique intent on causing GBH as Paul repeatedly attack Mark’s head.
Paul may be guilty of murder.
Unlawful Act Manslaughter (UAM) (AG’s Reference No.3 of 1994)
UAM will be a safer charge.
Intention to commit the act
The necessary MR is an intention to commit the underlying crime. Paul’s battery is intentionally carried out and fulfilled this requirement.
Unlawful act which must be criminal (Lamb)
Paul’s attack could at least be a battery that forms the underlying offence of UAM (Church).
Act must be dangerous
Attacking someone’s head repeatedly will cause some harm and a sober and reasonable person will recognize risk of it (Church). Thus, it is dangerous.
The act causes the death
This is established in the causation part above.
Paul will be convicted of UAM.
Sarah’s Death
Causation
Factual Causation
But for Paul’s push, Sarah would not die. Factual causation is fulfilled.
Legal Causation
Depending on the force of the push, Paul’s push was unlikely to be slight or trifling. The push is thus substantial. Concerning the operational requirement, Sarah’s weak skull should be considered. The eggshell skull rule applies that D must take V as they find them. D cannot escape liability simply because of V’s susceptibility to injury (Hayward). Thus, Sarah’s latent issue did not break the causation.
As such, causation is established,
UAM
Paul could be charged with UAM.
Intention to commit the act
Paul’s attack was intentionally carried out.
Unlawful act which must be criminal (Lamb)
The push was battery that constitutes underlying offence of UAM (Church).
Act must be dangerous
It requires only to foresee some harm, it is not necessary to foresee the sort of harm (M). If the force of the push is gentle, Paul may argue that no harm is foreseeable.
However, some offence itself is not dangerous, but it would become dangerous in view of the surrounding circumstances (Bristow). Being Sarah’s husband, it is very likely that Paul knows of Sarah’s special condition. This may render his push a dangerous act.
The act causes the death
This is established in the causation part above.
Paul will be convicted of UAM.
Erine’s Death
Causation
Factual Causation
But for Paul’s driving, Erine would not die. Factual causation is fulfilled.
Legal Causation
Switching off a life support machine which comes bona fide is not an intervening act (Malcherek). The causation chain is not broken.
As such, causation is established.
Gross Negligence Manslaughter (GNM) (Adomako)
Careless/dangerous driving is a crime of strict liability (Andrews) hence there is no UAM.
Existence of Duty of Care
Drivers owe a duty to other road users (Nettleship).
Breach of Duty
D must do something that a reasonable person would not have done or fail to do something should be done (Blyth). Paul failed to drive with care, the duty of care was breached.
Causing the death
Causation is established above.
Gross Negligence
The breach should be gross and far below the standard of reasonable person (Adomako) and shows disregard of other’s life and safety (Bateman). This depend of the driving speed.
It is criticized that if V dies, they must be clearly a risk of death and the proof will be easy (Elloitt, 2014).
Alternatively, as Paul created a danger situation, he has the duty to eliminate it (Miller). His refusal to ask help breach the duty..
Paul may be convicted of GNM.