Essay Plan: ‘In homicide cases, the courts manipulate the doctrines of omission, and of causation, to produce the results they think are just, rather than aiming to develop stable general principles’. Discuss.

Introduction

• Focus:

◦ Analyse how courts handle omission and causation in homicide cases.

◦ Discuss whether judicial decisions prioritise just outcomes over developing consistent legal principles.

Paragraph 1: Omission and Duty of Care

• Duty of Care:

◦ Key Cases:

▪ R v Stone & Dobinson: Duty of care through voluntary assumption of responsibility.

▪ R v Broughton: Expanding on omissions liability in modern contexts.

◦ Alternative Approaches:

▪ Good Samaritan laws in other jurisdictions that impose broader duties to act.

◦ Analysis:

▪ Courts may impose a duty of care to achieve just outcomes, potentially stretching principles to cover specific cases.

Paragraph 2: Continuing Acts Doctrine

• Doctrine Overview:

◦ Extends liability where an initial non-culpable act becomes culpable through continued omission.

• Key Cases:

◦ Fagan v MPC: Continuation of an act leading to liability.

◦ R v Speck: Inactivity as a form of continuing act.

• Theoretical Perspective:

◦ Steven Heyman’s Citizenship Argument: Imposing duties reflects societal expectations of citizenship and moral responsibility.

• Analysis:

◦ The application of the continuing acts doctrine may be manipulated to fit the perceived justice of the case.

Paragraph 3: Causation

• General Principles:

◦ Challenges in establishing a clear, consistent causation doctrine due to case-specific variables.

• Key Cases:

◦ R v Kennedy: Established principles around novus actus interveniens (new intervening acts).

◦ R v Empress Car Co.: Liability despite an intervening act of a third party.

◦ R v Wallace: Complex causation involving euthanasia after initial harm.

• Analysis:

◦ Courts may adjust causation principles to reflect the desired outcome, complicating the establishment of general rules.

Paragraph 4: Intervening Medical Errors

• Case Law on Medical Interventions:

◦ Key Cases:

▪ R v Smith: Medical error did not break the chain of causation.

▪ R v Jordan: Gross medical negligence considered a break in causation.

▪ R v Cheshire: Emphasised the defendant’s act as the significant cause despite medical errors.

• Reasonable Foreseeability:

◦ The role of foreseeability in determining whether medical errors break the chain of causation.

• Analysis:

◦ Courts' decisions in these cases show variability, suggesting manipulation of causation to suit the facts and achieve perceived justice.

Conclusion

• Summarise:

◦ The courts often adapt doctrines of omission and causation to reach just outcomes, potentially at the expense of legal consistency.

• Final Thoughts:

◦ While this flexibility may achieve fairness in individual cases, it challenges the development of clear and stable legal principles in homicide law.