Billy Peterson Case Summary
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT
BETWEEN:
BILLY Appellant -and-
R Respondent
__________________________________________
APPELLANT’S SKELETON ARGUMENT
__________________________________________
A. INTRODUCTION
1.1 This is the appellant’s skeleton argument for the case of his appeal. The arguments to quash the conviction under s. 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA) are based on the misdirection’s …show more content…
18 of OAPA. The offence is causing GBH with intention to cause GBH and the intention of Billy therefore must reflect this. There is no question based on the sexual relationship between Anita and Billy that some harm was intended. However, there is no evidence that this harm was anywhere close to that of GBH. It was even established in Taylor that intention to wound was insufficient to amount to intent under s. 18 of the OAPA.
(c) Thereby, the facts of the case points towards to direct intention to be found. However, the judge should then have directed the jury in relation to oblique intention and the virtual certainty test from Woolin. The result of Anita ending in a coma was not a virtual certainty based on Billy’s actions and Billy was not aware (or had any foresight) of such an outcome taking place. This can be said with certainty looking at Billy’s actions after Anita was hurt. He immediately went to help her and called an ambulance not long after. That is not actions of someone who intended to cause grievous bodily …show more content…
The chain of causation itself should have been examined, even before considering the medical negligence. There should have been referred to the factual causation set out in the case of White and the legal causation of substantial from Cato and operating established in Pagett to ensure that Billy could said to have been the cause of Anita’s injury’s. If these tests had been properly applied, the issue of medical negligence and Anita’s own actions would have provided reason to question if a novus actus intervienins had occurred.
(b) There was no reference made to medical negligence and the test set out in Chesire. As, with the previous misdirection it can be argued based on prior case law that this misdirection would potentially not significantly have changed the outcome. This is due to the limited case law where reliance on medical negligence has been allowed. Chesire set the test, as the treatment had to be “Palpably wrong or Grossly negligent” making it difficult to
CRIMINAL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT
BETWEEN:
BILLY Appellant -and-
R Respondent
__________________________________________
APPELLANT’S SKELETON ARGUMENT
__________________________________________
A. INTRODUCTION
1.1 This is the appellant’s skeleton argument for the case of his appeal. The arguments to quash the conviction under s. 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA) are based on the misdirection’s …show more content…
18 of OAPA. The offence is causing GBH with intention to cause GBH and the intention of Billy therefore must reflect this. There is no question based on the sexual relationship between Anita and Billy that some harm was intended. However, there is no evidence that this harm was anywhere close to that of GBH. It was even established in Taylor that intention to wound was insufficient to amount to intent under s. 18 of the OAPA.
(c) Thereby, the facts of the case points towards to direct intention to be found. However, the judge should then have directed the jury in relation to oblique intention and the virtual certainty test from Woolin. The result of Anita ending in a coma was not a virtual certainty based on Billy’s actions and Billy was not aware (or had any foresight) of such an outcome taking place. This can be said with certainty looking at Billy’s actions after Anita was hurt. He immediately went to help her and called an ambulance not long after. That is not actions of someone who intended to cause grievous bodily …show more content…
The chain of causation itself should have been examined, even before considering the medical negligence. There should have been referred to the factual causation set out in the case of White and the legal causation of substantial from Cato and operating established in Pagett to ensure that Billy could said to have been the cause of Anita’s injury’s. If these tests had been properly applied, the issue of medical negligence and Anita’s own actions would have provided reason to question if a novus actus intervienins had occurred.
(b) There was no reference made to medical negligence and the test set out in Chesire. As, with the previous misdirection it can be argued based on prior case law that this misdirection would potentially not significantly have changed the outcome. This is due to the limited case law where reliance on medical negligence has been allowed. Chesire set the test, as the treatment had to be “Palpably wrong or Grossly negligent” making it difficult to