View Full Version : Manslaugter charge for not interfering


tony draper
25th Apr 2005, 21:38
Seems a bit steep to me ,that this lady is charged with manslaugter because she chose to do nothing when her husband chose to take a overdose.
Hyperthetical question, if I am walking over the Tyne bridge and come upon a chap standing on the rail who threatens to jump and being busy I continue my journey totaly ignoring him as he leaps to his death, can I be charged with manslaugter?.



LordGrumpy
25th Apr 2005, 21:43
Interesting subject to debate. So while this matter is being examined in the courts, best to just watch. However the issues of assisted suicide and euthenasia need constant assessment.
Trouble is the arguements are so wide and many, more words will be written before case law is on the statute books.

tony draper
25th Apr 2005, 21:49
Well the point is she did not assist, I can see a case for prosecution if you were to physically help someone to say slit their throat, she did nothing to help, the chap was not paralized or disabled he took a overdose under his own steam, she appears to be in the dock because what she did not do, was pick up a telephone and call medical help.

autosync
25th Apr 2005, 22:45
if I am walking over the Tyne bridge and come upon a chap standing on the rail who threatens to jump

Herr Draper,
If it was a hippy, you would most likely cross the road just to push him!

Wedge
25th Apr 2005, 22:57
if I am walking over the Tyne bridge and come upon a chap standing on the rail who threatens to jump and being busy I continue my journey totaly ignoring him as he leaps to his death, can I be charged with manslaugter?

No. It would appear that in this case the CPS has considered that because this was the wife of the deceased - ie a relationship of very close proximity - that she did not take reasonable steps to save her husband's life in the knowledge that he had taken a life-threatening overdose and can therefore be viewed as guilty of manslaughter (unintentional killing).

Even then I'd consider it highly unlikely that a jury will find her guilty of manslaughter if she took no part in the overdose unless there are more pertinent facts that have not been made public which will be adduced in evidence at the trial.

Four Seven Eleven
25th Apr 2005, 23:29
if I am walking over the Tyne bridge and come upon a chap standing on the rail who threatens to jump and being busy I continue my journey totaly ignoring him as he leaps to his death, can I be charged with manslaugter?

As I understand it, a significant point is whether or not the 'chap' is someone to whom you owe a duty of care due to a close relationship, such as a familial relationship.

If the chap is a stranger, then you are legally not bound to do anything. If, for example, it is your sixteen year old son, then you are legally obliged to take reasonable action to save his life.

Morally, however, the choice and the consequences are yours.

In the case of the woman whose husband took the overdose, the basis of any prosecution might rely on the principle of reckless or negligent endangerment through inaction, where a reasonable person owing a duty of care to the deceased might have acted differently. Doing nothing, or even sitting and watching, might be seen as unreasonable under the circumstances.

As a contrast, imagine the situation where the husband had accidentally suffered life threatening injuries, and the wife chose to watch him, unconscious and bleeding to death, rather than call for an ambulance.

As with all things legal, there are huge grey areas.

tony draper
25th Apr 2005, 23:37
A accident by definition is not something one chooses, so that case is surely different.
Ok,what about a case of not intervening because to do so would endanger your own life ?
Incidently I can remember when suicide itself was a crime, perhaps it would be more correct to say attempted suicide was a crime, succesful suicides always got away with it.
:rolleyes:

reynoldsno1
26th Apr 2005, 00:18
My Dad took an overdose, and then told my Mum what he had done. Since he was virtually bedridden at the time, and had decided to declare his innings, she gave him a hug and held him while he went to sleep.

I'm just glad the CPS wasn't there to interfere.....

MikeKnight
26th Apr 2005, 00:44
I think it all comes down to the circumstances. For the Bridge-jumping example, i don't think you could be prosecuted. This is because there isn't really much you can do for someone whose just jumped off a bridge. Other forms of suicide however there is plenty you can do to help them.

pigboat
26th Apr 2005, 01:07
I was once the company division rep in something called SIES, the Systeme International de Securite et Sante, a health and safety programme. In answer to your question about putting yourself in harm's way Tony, the first thing we were taught was to secure the scene of an accident, then determine if you would put yourself in danger by attempting to aid the victim. There was no penalty attached if you judged that you would endanger your own life by offering assistance.

Reynolds your mom was one brave and compassionate lady.

fleigle
26th Apr 2005, 01:41
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if I am walking over the Tyne bridge and come upon a chap standing on the rail who threatens to jump
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Was he from Sunderland/Jarra/Newcastle?, or Gatesheed ?
Hoy im ower, or offerim a pint.
:E

Four Seven Eleven
26th Apr 2005, 01:57
tony

A accident by definition is not something one chooses, so that case is surely different.
Yes, but is it legally different? (I don't know)

Ok,what about a case of not intervening because to do so would endanger your own life ?
Covered by what is 'reasonable' under the circumstances, I would imagine.

Incidently I can remember when suicide itself was a crime, perhaps it would be more correct to say attempted suicide was a crime, succesful suicides always got away with it.
In the miltary, I believe you would be - at least in the not too distant past - charged with 'damage to government property. (Only partially tongue-in-cheek, as the charge would in fact be something similar.

reynoldsno1

My Dad took an overdose, and then told my Mum what he had done. Since he was virtually bedridden at the time, and had decided to declare his innings, she gave him a hug and held him while he went to sleep.

I'm just glad the CPS wasn't there to interfere.....
Hear. hear. The law should not interfere in every case. Compassion and humanity should be allowed to prevail in some situations. Your mother was both compassionate and courageous. Give her plenty of hugs.

Buster Hyman
26th Apr 2005, 02:39
a chap standing on the rail who threatens to jump

What if you were a time traveller & the guy on the bridge was about to invent the electric light globe?

henry crun
26th Apr 2005, 03:56
Four Seven Eleven: In the military the charge would probably be "self inflicted injury" which could cover almost type of accident.


I knew a bloke in the RAF who, while more than a tad intoxicated on VE night in Brussels, tried to walk along the iron railing of the balcony of a hotel.


Unfortunately he was on the second floor, and when he fell off into the courtyard onto his head it split open.
He survived, but only just, and was very ill for several months.


When he had recovered he was charged with self inflicted injury.
I was laughing so much at his description of the event and its consequences I cannot remember the result of his court martial.
If he was found guilty the sentence could not have been too severe because he was still in uniform many years later. :)

Paterbrat
26th Apr 2005, 11:29
In the 'Senior Service' that is an order.

"RM's round the world on your heads. Bounce!"

ORAC
28th Apr 2005, 06:33
Widow acquitted on failure to prevent husband's suicide
Jury throws out charge of manslaughter
The Guardian

A jury took less than three hours yesterday to throw out a prosecution which threatened to extend the crime of manslaughter to carers who fail to prevent suicides by people who have repeatedly made it clear that they wish to take their own lives.

Jill Anderson, 49, who told police she and her pain-racked husband, Paul, had exchanged the phrase "I love you" at least 17 times a day in his final weeks, was cleared after admitting that she had failed to dial 999 when he took the last of many overdoses at their Yorkshire country cottage.

"Her actions have been totally vindicated," said Mrs Anderson's solicitor, John Mewies, after the verdict at Leeds crown court. "She did what she thought was right and proper and more importantly what she believed her husband would have wished."...