R v Clarke 
- Clarke (2 defendants) assaulted the victim, who had osteoporosis
- Clarke attempted to resuscitate the victim following the assault
- Medical evidence suggested that the cause of the victims resulting death was the damage to his ribs sustained during the resuscitation attempts
- Could the conviction be quashed on the basis that the judge said in writing that it was not for the jury to decide whether the cause of death was a substantial cause?
- No, conviction secure
- The judge was wrong to say what he said in writing; it is for the jury to decide whether the defendant caused death
- The conviction was secure however, as the judge correctly stated the jury requirement orally, and also stated orally that his written notes were not guidance on the law
- The judge was entitled to rule that a ‘expert’ was not sufficiently credible to give evidence
Posted in Uncategorized Revision Notes.
This page was last updated on 24th December 2014