CASE NOTE ON R v Cheshire 1991 PDF

Preview

Summary

A very detailed case note on R v Cheshire 1991...

Description

Case note R v Cheshire1 Facts On 9 December 1987, the appellant, David William Cheshire, shot Trevor Jeffrey, the deceased, during an argument in a shop in Greenwich. The deceased was shot twice by the defendant on his thigh and stomach. Subsequently, the victim was taken to hospital where doctors inserted a tracheotomy tube which remained for the next four weeks to resolve his respiratory problems. His condition soon worsened and died on 15th February. At post mortem, it was discovered that the deceased’s windpipe had become so narrowed at the site of the tracheotomy scar that a small amount of mucus could have blocked it and caused asphyxiation. The appellant was charged with murder and was convicted; this decision was appealed on the grounds that the jury was misdirected. Issue The key issue was whether the actions of the appellant was the operating and substantial cause of the victim’s death or whether the negligent medical treatment the victim received was independent and so potent in causing death that the chain of causation was broken and the contribution made by appellant’s acts were insignificant. Judgement The first instance judge, Judge Richard Lowry Q.C., directed the jury that for the medical treatment to break the chain of causation, it must be reckless and not, “Mere carelessness or mere negligence.2” The judge also directed the jury to decide if the appellant’s acts contributed significantly to the result and further stated that it didn’t need to be the sole or main cause of the result. The Court of Appeal referred to Reg. v. Jordan, 40 Cr.App.R. 152 and Reg. v. Smith [1959] 2 Q.B. 35 and consequently rejected the appellant’s argument that the jury was misdirected by the trial judge 3. It was made clear by the judges that negligence in the victim’s medical treatment was the immediate cause of his death. However, the Court stated that the jury should consider whether the negligent treatment the victim received was, “in itself so potent in causing death, that they regard the contribution made by his [accused] acts as insignificant.4” Therefore, the trial judge did not misdirect the jury as it is not the jury’s function to assess various causes and to identify a commanding one; the jury must be satisfied that the appellant’s acts made a significant contribution to the death of the victim. As the appellant shot the victim, his actions cannot be regarded as insignificant. Impact The decision of the judges in this case established the role of the jury in identifying the liability for death even if medical negligence was the immediate cause of the death. It also further supports the principle that only in extreme cases, as mentioned by the Court, can medical treatment act to be a novus actus inteveniens. The decision in this case was both important and necessary as it further confirms that the law provides extensive legal protection to medical practitioners providing that they do not breach their duty and cause harm to the patient. This is important as it allows medical practitioners to treat patients without the fear of a potential lawsuit. This encourages medical practitioners to focus on treating patients in their full capacity, to fulfil their duty of care, as opposed to worrying about possible liabilities which could lead to patients receiving substandard care. However, there is difficulty in determining what the standard of care is due to different circumstances and new treatments. Whilst it’s convenient to use the Bolam test5, the English courts, just as they did with recklessness, must clarify what the words acceptable and responsible convey in law. 1 Regina v Cheshire [1991] 1 WLR 844. 2 ibid 4. 3 ibid 8. 4 ibid 8. 5 Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582

Bibliography Cases Regina v Cheshire [1991] 1 WLR 844. Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582...