This problem question deals with the various offences committed by different people to establish

wthere they are liable or no, the analysis and law is as follows:

(a)

After considering the given situation my preferred charge for Richard would be constructive
manslaughter for Steves death and Common assault (battery) Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm
(ABH) s.47 and/or Malious wounding s.20 for chipping a bone in his elbow (chipping which can
cause stop of blood supply). Here the establishment of Offence against Person Act sections has to be
established first. Punch considered as battery ( an act by which a person intentionally or recklessly inflicts
non-consensual unlawful force upon another person). The force can be indirect also DPP v K (a minor) (1990).
The slightest degree of force will suffice for the battery (Cole v Turner (1704); Collins v Wilcock (1984)). R and S
were not friends or relatives or colleagues and that’s with punch was unlawful there was not concent given by S
(Collins v Wilcock (1984) and deliberately causing some on harm is inherently unlawful (A-G’s Ref (N0 6 of
1980).

Here force is a punch which is direct which inflicts harm on Steves when he fall down (DPP v Smith). The test
used for subjective recklessness is Cunningham will be applied here to prove mens rea that is R was awareness
or thought that risk of danger is there, still deliberate accepts that unjustified or unreasonable risk (Cunningham-
affirmed in Briggs (1977)). R was clearly aware so there he is liable for committing battery on S.

Further he can be liable for the offence under s.47, as it can be consider as more than transient and trifling
(Donovan). Assault occasioning ABH can be committed either, where D, intentionally or recklessly, commits
either an assault (in the strict sense) or battery against V who suffers actual bodily harm as result and P does not
need to prove foresight for causing ABH (Robert and Savage). Chipping a bone in his elbow can be
considered as ABH as it is minor fracture, displaced bone which cause temporary loss of sensory
function stop of blood supply.
As R’s act was intentional which is very much clear from the facts to make battery. And for the purpose of s.47
the P do not need to prove that R intended or foresaw the injury (Robert and Savage). So, the preferred charge
can be s.47. In other words as Common assault occurred (battery) which occasioned (cause) ABH (chipping a
bone in his elbow) not need to prove mens rea for s.47 (Robert and Savage).

R may be liable for s. 20 also as the seriousness of the injury is a matter for Jury considering the age
and fitness level of S (Bollom). Penetration of both layers of skin (dermis and epidermis) is wound
but internal ruptures does not count as wound (Eisehower). S injuries can be charged for inflicting
GBH (Clarence and Wilson). This offence need intention and subjective recklessness. P does not need
to prove the degree of harm intended or foresight (Mowatt and Parmenter).

b) As Steve death occurred because of the act (punch) made by Richard so he is not only liable for
what he did intentionally but also for the further consequences caused by his blameworthy act. The prosecution
has to prove all the elements of the offence (authority is Lamb and Larkin). But if the D successfully prove that he
has a defence (self defence or consent) then no conviction (Scarlett (1993)).

Actus reus

An intentional, unlawful and dangerous act, which cause the death of Steve (S ) (Larkin (1943), Newbury and
Jones, (Goodfellow (1986) and R V F).
1St element - intentional act the P (prosecution) has to prove that Richard’s ( R ) act was main cause of death
not omission (Lowe). Richard’s intentionally punched Steve which is very much clear from the facts.

2nd element: R’s unlawful act, which should be considered as a crime in the eye of law and the death must be
caused by commission of that act (Franklin (1883); Lamb (1967); and Jennings).

Here the criminal act is a Battery which cause ABH (common law offence). P has to prove that the actus reus
and mens rea elements of the offence. D committed a battery because he intentionally inflicts unlawful force on
Jack by punching him in the head. Consent is ineffective where ABH is intended or caused deliberately (A-G's
Ref (No. 6 of 1980)).

3rd element: From objective point of view dangerous and unlawful act committed by Richard, which a sober and
reasonable person comprehends has a risk of harm to other person even it's clear to Richard that the risk can
occur (Attorney-General's Reference (No 3 of 1994)), he is liable. Lord Hope stated dangerousness in this
respect is not a higher standard. What is needed that an act which caused harm to the other person.' In the case
R v. Newbury and Jones, the court considered the D intentionally does an unlawful and dangerous act, and there
is no necessity that the defendant foresees a risk of harm to others arising from his unlawful act. Similarly in our
case R’s initial act (punch) which any reasonable person will consider unlawful.

(c) He did not continue his act and leave S there so he shall not be liable as in case of Miller and Fagan are
the constitute two qualifications to the rule that actus reus and mens rea should coincide in point of time.

In defence he can argue that there are several event occur which cause a death. First Isobel who did not help
(omission) him while he bump on her and walk on hurry. Second medical intervention- Pradip (heavily
intoxicated), the hospital registrar and discharge him without noticing his concussion (automatism
condition), third car driver Dolly who is the real cause of S death as she was taking on and made an
accident.
(d) 4th element: which cause death (chain of causation) -

The P here has to establish that Richards is accountable for all the consequences of their wrongful act which can
be foreseeable and foreseen by them. For this P has to establish that death caused by the initial act of R and no
chain is broken between Ds act and novus actus interveniue (court of Appeal decision Cato (1976)). R’s act is
factual (but for) and legal cause (substantial and operative) cause for the death of the S (Kennedy and Mitchell).
S act were in the category with in the responses expected form the reasonable person (Robert and Williams and
Davis) Negligent medical treatment will rarely break the chain of causation (Cheshire). Unless the medical
treatment was palpable (very poor) and independent then only it will break the chain of causation (R v Jordan).
Sam's acts and so potent in causing death that it renders Sam's acts insignificant.

R initial act was intended to cause harm (Smith) which is the main cause of S death even though other causes
also happened (Smith, White, Pagett, and Cheshire).

Pradip fix his injuries this shows that he was not completely out of control so he is not negligent also as he made
a possible treatment (Cheshire). S was acting in automatism. Which is defined by Lord Denning in the case of
Bratty and concussion is an involuntary act which is off Corse happened because of R’s initial act and that’s why
Dolly is not liable to the death.

(e) Isobel may be liable for the offence of gross negligent manslaughter for the death of S as she is made
omission and not having mens rea for murder.

(f) As per Draft Criminal Code Bill 1989, clause 17; a person is guilty of the resulted harm if their contribution to
its result is more than negligible. Or D was under the categories of the duty situations to prevent the resulted
harm and they fail to perform their duty (omission).

As above mentioned in ( c) that she fail to help S while he bump with her. But she did not made bump by herself
so constructive manslaughter is not a preferred charge but gross negligence should be preferred as she made an
omission. She should assume voluntarily a legal duty to help a person in peril (Instan).
(g) In defence she can claim that she does not fall under the duty situation category as she is not having any
relation with S and voluntary assumption is not required here as he was stranger on the road may be coming to
robber her or with what intention was unclear to her. As she did not looked back that’s why she did not realized
his real condition otherwise she would help. Since she did not notice she is not under duty situation. And for the
Gross negligent manslaughter at least foresight for risk of death has to be there (Rv Rose).

(h) the P can argue she acted negligently and also recklessly (Adomako). She fail to exercise the reasonable skill
and care as expected from the reasonable person in the similar situation of Isobel (Evans and Millers).

(i) Conclusion :

Following an argument, Richard punches Steve, who falls over, chipping a bone in his elbow. Richard
walks away. As Steve is attempting to get up he bumps into Isobel, who has just turned the corner.
Isobel, who is in a hurry, keeps on walking, and does not look behind her. As a consequence, she fails
to see that Steve falls over and hits his head, which renders him unconscious. Steve is taken to
hospital. Pradip, the hospital registrar, examines Steve, who is suffering from concussion as well as a
painful elbow. Pradip, who is heavily intoxicated, fails to notice that Steve is suffering from
concussion and discharges him. On the way home, Steve stumbles into the path of a car driven by
Dolly, who was speaking on her mobile phone and not paying attention. Steve is badly injured in the
resulting crash.