The appellants claimed they tried to get medical help but were unsuccessful. Detective inspector Ashton interviewed Dobinson on the 2nd of August, 1975, where Dobinson claimed “I asked him (ted) to meet a doctor but because she was not on his panel the doctor wouldn’t come”. If Fanny received medical attention she was likely to survive, but the appellants had not pursued any furthermore help to try get medical attention. When Stone was asked about calling an ambulance for Fanny her replied “I did not think that”. (Archive, 1976) (Westlaw-UK, …show more content…
Both defendants must have seen a risk of harm, serious harm or death. The prosecution must provide evidence showing that both Stone and Dobinson were reckless towards the deceased. Although they did provide a duty of care towards Fanny their actions were not reckless. Lord Hewart states in Rex v Bateman [1925] 19 Cr. App. R.8 that “Reckless suggests an indifference to risk whereas the accused may have appreciated the risk and intended to avoid it and get shown such a high degree of negligence in the means adopted to avoid the risk would justify conviction”. However recklessness is in fact present as the appellants took the risk to provide Fanny with a room providing a duty of care and appreciated this