homicide Flashcards

1
Q

Re A (Children)(Conjoined Twins) [2001] 2 WLR 480, Court of Appeal

A

Jodie and Mary were conjoined twin girls. They were connected at the pelvis, but each had her own brain, heart, lungs, arms, and legs. Unfortunately, Mary’s heart and lungs were deficient. She therefore drew on Jodie’s heart and lungs to pump blood through her body. The prognosis for them was that if they were not separated, Jodie’s heart would not be able to continue to support them both and both twins would die within a few months. If they were separated, however, while Jodie would have a normal life expectancy, Mary would die. The medical team supported performing the operation, but the twins’ parents did not

The doctors sought a declaration that performing the operation wold be lawful.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

decision

A

The Court of Appeal separated its discussion into two realms of law: the first was whether the operation would be a criminal offence; the second was whether, assuming it was not an offence, it would be appropriate to authorize the operation as a matter of family or medical law.

The Court of Appeal accepted that the performance of the operation could amount to the actus reus and mens rea of murder. The act would cause Mary’s death. The Court rejected Johnson J’s arguments both that the operation was not an act, but a withdrawal of treatment, and that her life was not worth continuing. The mens rea of murder (that is, the intent to kill) or of grievous bodily harm was also present. It was virtually certain that the operation would kill Mary and this, the Court held, would be treated as intention.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

comments in the court

A

First, all three of their Lordships appeared to accept the argument that because the doctors had foreseen the result of the operation as inevitably being the death of Mary, they should be taken to have intended it. Their Lordships referred to the decision in Woollin [1999] 1 AC 82—but that case, in fact, says that if the result is virtually certain and foreseen as such, the jury is entitled to find intent, not that intent must be found

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly