TASK 2: Problem Solving Tasks 30%

TASK 2: Problem Solving Tasks 30%

You must provide a response (max 750 words) to ONE of the problems provided below. You will provide an advice about the likely outcome based on the facts provided, using appropriate legislation and case law to support your response.

1.    Dan and Dave have been charged with the murder of Julian and Alan. The prosecution case is that there had been an argument between Julian and Alan, and Dan and Dave. Dan and Dave produced knives and chased Julian and Alan to a train station where they attacked Julian and Alan, watched by several of Dave’s friends. The prosecution claims that Julian and Alan then ran to a nearby open canal which was flooded due to recent rain, chased by Dave’s friends who were also carrying knives. Julian and Alan believed they were still under attack, and jumped in the canal where they drowned. Discuss the criminal liability of Dan and Dave. You do not have to consider the issue of complicity.
2.    V has a violent relationship with her partner, D. One day, D threatens her with a knife in the kitchen. In fear for her life, V runs out of the house and towards the road. She collides with a passer-by and the impact throws her into the path of oncoming traffic. She is struck by a passing truck. The truck driver realises what he has done but reverses in panic and runs over V a second time. V dies on arrival at hospital. The cause of death was severe head trauma resulting from the injuries received when the truck reversed over V. Discuss D’s criminal liability.
3.    D, a practising doctor, has been charged with the murder of his 75 year old father, V. V, a chronic diabetic, had been suffering from a terminal form of cancer, which had spread, over parts of his face and neck resulting in the surgical removal of one eye and the amputation of an ear. The quality of his life was described as extremely poor and he had lived the last six months of his life in extreme pain as a patient in a specialist hospital. He was also extremely depressed over the surgery that had disfigured his appearance. D was very attached to his father and, at his father’s request, injected V with a purportedly lethal dose of insulin and also assisted him to take a massive dose of the anti-depressant prescribed for V, amitriptyline. V fell into a short coma, which was misdiagnosed by medical staff as being attributable to his diabetic condition. On his recovery 8 hours later, nursing staff administered two increased doses of amitriptyline, which proved to be fatal in combination with the dose earlier administered by D. The first shift nurse had failed to complete the medical chart. An autopsy subsequently revealed that death was caused by an overdose of amitriptyline. D comes to you for advice.