Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Duty of care in care settings level 3
Duty of care in care setting
Duty of care in care settings level 3
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Duty of care in care settings level 3
It is possible to hold that Stone and Dobinson caused the victims death because there was a legal duty on the Defendants(D) to care for the deceased(V), which they accepted. Given that they had voluntarily undertaken responsibility of the provision of V’s basic needs and that V occupied a room in the house (there was also some indication that the family relationship between V and one of the defendants had also contributed to the duty), once helplessness supervened The victim was dependant and reasonably relied upon stone and Dobinson, and in the absence of any steps to dissociate themselves from responsibility by placing her in the care of others (although there are some signs that they made attempts to do this), It is this reliance that generates …show more content…
a duty on their part to take care of her. It is the breach of this duty that stands out as a ‘deviation’ and thus a cause . The judge looked to authorities such as Instan where it is established that a duty can arise where the promise of care is implicit. There were many issues in this case that the court had to consider when deciding that the defendants were under a duty to act.
Firstly, with duty to act cases, it is often not clear exactly what D must do, or how little, before the duty will arise. The Ruffell case shows just how little you have to do in order for a duty to arise. Another issue is that it is very difficult to know exactly when the defendants had in fact undertaken responsibility to care for the victim (Ds had a very minimal interaction with V); the facts reveal that the defendants were of low intelligence which makes it unlikely that they would ever be capable providing the necessary care V required. The conviction of the defendant’s advocates that the courts adopt a strict stance when faced with claims that the accused had done what he believed to be sufficient to fulfil the duty. There is a lack of case law surrounding what family relations trigger a duty to act, this leads to uncertainty and inconsistency in cases when looking at the facts of the case . This is significant because prior to this case there was no case law that established a duty to act between siblings and without familial duties to act the duties to act based on an assumption of care might not have held up on its own as D’s attempts to care for V were so miniscule. Lastly There was also dispute on whether the D’s in this case believed that they had sufficiently fulfilled their duty or that what they were doing was sufficient because …show more content…
they were of low intelligence. (b) On what other grounds have the courts decided that a passive failure to act may satisfy the actus requirements of an offence? The law will only impose a duty to act in very narrow categories. Statutes frequently make it an offence to omit to do something.
There are legislative provisions that require companies to submit various kinds of figures (tax, license, etc.) and making it an offence to fail to do so. These types of offences are known as offence specific duties to act and are not restricted to just corporate regulation: the driver of a vehicle involved in an incident causing damage or injury to any person, vehicle or animal is to provide his name and address to any person that has reasonable grounds for requiring him to do so, or report the accident to the police within 24hours . A motorist who fails to provide a police officer with a sample of breathe when required to do so also commits an offence these offences are uncontroversial providing that they respect the general principles of criminal law. At common law, offences of pure omission can also to be found, though not often. A police officer was held to be guilty of a common law misdemeanour when, without justification, he failed to carry out his duty to preserve the queens peace by protesting a citizen who was being kicked to death
. A contractual duty to act can also be recognised in criminal law in the right circumstances. Some contracts can involve the protection of property. Where the failure to fulfil a contractual obligation is likely to endanger lives, the criminal law will impose a duty to act . The duty will be owed not only to other parties to the contract but also to any other person whose life may be endangered. In Pittwood the accuses was convicted of gross negligence manslaughter following the death of a road user who was hit by a train on a level crossing because the Defendant left the gate open. Duties to act in relation to professions are firmly established The existence of a close relationship can give rise to a duty to act. It is established in Gibbins and Proctor that parents are under a duty to their children to protect them from physical harm. Hood establishes that spouses are also responsible for each other. Apart from these few cases, there is a lack in family case law which provides uncertainty as to what other family arrangements will amount to a duty to act . Where a person (who doesn’t have the required mens rea), does an act which starts a chain reaction, and that reaction is then uninterrupted, that results in harm to another or his property, that person Is, on becoming aware that he was the cause, under a duty to take steps within his power to prevent or minimise the risk of harm. If before the harm occurs, he realises what he has done and with appropriate mens rea he fails to take such steps, he will be criminally liable . the Miller principle was extended by the more recent case Evans . Although the Miller and Evans cases are similar, with duty arising from the creation of a dangerous situation. However, Millers duty to act only arose when he became personally aware of the danger, whether as in Evans the duty was said to arise when d realises or should have realised that the danger was created.
The appeal was heard in The NSW Supreme Court, Court of Appeal. The appellant appealed the issue of “blameless accidents” therefore providing new evidence, with the view that the preceding judge made an error recognising the content and scope of duty of care. He also noted the breach of duty of care and causation .
This illustrates the refusal of the rights of victims and the inevitable denial of justice for society. The coronial inquest that was conducted in 2011, corrected some of the initial issues with the investigation. Before the inquest, vital DNA evidence was disposed of, as a result of human error, which meant that the likely suspect could not be identified. As a result of human error the inquest provided some form of justice for society but due to how late it was conducted the family did not receive justice
The Daniel Pelka serious case review is one of many that are conducted around the United Kingdom every year. A serious case review is a local enquiry into the death or serious injury of a child, where abuse or neglect are known or suspected. These are conducted by the Local Safeguarding Children Boards; with the main focus being on what lessons can be learnt locally to prevent this from happening again (Brandon, Bailey, Belderson, 2010). In this textual analysis we will be looking back at previous case reviews including Jasmine Beckford and Baby P. We will then look at what recommendations have been made and use the Peka case to see weather we have learned from our previous mistakes or are we still in the same position now as we where then.
While John 's mother never confronted her husband about his actions, or went to the police before the murder she did eventually confront the police during the trial. " Sandra Telford had her husband served with divorce papers at Riker," (Locos Parentis"). While this was the right thing in the end, later everyone was debating on whether or not she should go to jail as well, but in this case I believe that she was just as much as a victim as John and Chris were. For all the jury and police know she could have been physically abused, and even gas lighted by her husband which makes it even harder to leave. These possibilities make it harder to leave someone and with a total of 4,000 deaths every year related to domestic violence she could have been attempting to protect her own life. While she personally was not convicted of any crime in this case, Robert took a deal and got two to six years in prison, his son was sentenced to ten plus years. This particular sentence is unjust due to the fact that John could have been dealing with the abuse from his father starting from the time he was born, so he may not know right from wrong. Due to this factor and evidence in the case I believe John should be put into a mental hospital so he can attempt to learn right from wrong and get the therapy he obviously needs. Looking at the evidence against Robert I believe
Social Work is the study of people and how they interact with the systems in their environment and other people. Social Workers use theories, sets of ideas or concepts, of human behavior and apply them within their professional social work ethics to the problems facing clients in order to help them gain balance in the systems in their lives. Theories help to organize knowledge enabling social workers to help make sense of problems. There are many different theories. They have been grouped into broad categories called theoretical lenses (Rogers, A. 2013).
The Andrea Yates murder trial was one of the most highly publicized cases of 2001. Perplexing and complicated, it appealed to the public audience for various reasons. A mother methodically, drowns her five children in the family bathtub after her husband leaves for work. Was this an act of a cold calculating killer, or was this the act of a woman who lost touch with reality. Is this a case of medical neglect, and psychological dysfunctions, or is this a battle of ethics and deviant behavior exploiting medical and legal loop holes?
In 2007, Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsy committed a violent crime in Connecticut. These two men killed a mother and her two children. Ms. Hawke-Petit, the mother, was raped and strangled to death by Mr. Hayes and Mr. Komisarjevsy. The two men also restrained and raped her two young daughters. The daughters were raped, and then killed by smoke inhalation when Mr. Hayes and Mr. Komisarjevsy set the family’s home on fire. While the assault of his family was going on, Dr. William Petit was beaten and restrained by the two men. The state of Connecticut pressed a number of charges against the pair of criminals. Mr. Hayes was convicted of raping and strangling Ms. Hawke-Petit and killing the daughters, who died of smoke inhalation. Mr. Komisarjevsy was held accountable for his crimes against the Petit family in a separate trial. He was convicted of the killings and a slew of other crimes, including sexually assaulting the 11-year-old and taking indecent pictures of her on his cellphone. Although the two men faced two different trials, and juries, both men were sentenced to death. Komisarjevsy’s lawyers were adamant about changing his sentence due to his past. According to Komisarjevsy, he was sexually abused as a child, suffered from mood disorders and head injuries. He also abused drugs and self harmed. He also stated that his evangelical Christian adoptive parents denied him proper care, relying instead on religion (Glaberson, 2011). Komisarjevsy’s lawyer tried to use this to his advantage and crafted a defense based on the fact that he was a damaged person, who was worthy of life (Glaberson, 2011). This defense successfully changed the jurry’s minds, because Joshua Komisarjevsy was convicted with life in prison, as...
Butler was one of many to be accused of a crime he didn’t commit. In 1993, a woman got
...d, ‘so far as the threshold conditions are concerned, the factor which seems to me to outweigh all others is the prospect than an unidentified, and unidentifiable, carer may inflict further injury on a child he or she has already severely damaged’. This approach was later applied in Merton LBC v K .
At the closing of "A Jury of Her Peers," Minnie Foster Wright is exonerated. Although Minnie Foster does indeed cause her husband's death, she was not responsible for it, rather than being innocent, she was justified. Whereas the men thought that slipping a rope around her husband neck was a funn...
Imagine an elderly man inviting someone into his home to take care of him, but then his caretaker surprisingly creates a scheme that will get rid of him because of his eye. The old man trusted him with his life, and suddenly he takes it from him. The man I am describing is Mr. Heart, who is guilty of committing first degree murder. He was the victim’s caretaker for a long enough duration of time for them to develop a father-son relationship with one another, yet he killed him in the end. Members of the jury, after going over the evidence against Mr. Heart in the State of New Jersey vs. Mr. Heart case, it is as clear as day that he should be convicted of first degree murder, because the facts show proof of premeditation, deliberation, and malice.
committed by the courts. Our duty is to look after them with humanity and help them
"That to cause death in this way was 'a grave violation of the law of
There is a strict distinction between acts and omissions in tort of negligence. “A person is often not bound to take positive action unless they have agreed to do so, and have been paid for doing so.” (Cane.2009; 73) The rule is a settled one and allows some exceptions only in extreme circumstances. The core idea can be summarized in “why pick on me” argument. This attitude was spectacularly demonstrated in a notoriously known psychological experiment “The Bystander effect” (Latané & Darley. 1968; 377-383). Through practical scenarios, psychologists have found that bystanders are more reluctant to intervene in emergency situations as the size of the group increases. Such acts of omission are hardly justifiable in moral sense, but find some legal support. “A man is entitled to be as negligent as he pleases towards the whole world if he owes no duty to them.” (L Esher Lievre v Gould [1893] 1 Q.B. 497) Definitely, when there is no sufficient proximity between the parties, a legal duty to take care cannot be lawfully exonerated and imposed, as illustrated in Palmer v Tees Health Authority [1999] All ER (D) 722). If it could, individuals would have been in the permanent state of over- responsibility for others, neglecting their own needs. Policy considerations in omission cases are not inspired by the parable of Good Samaritan ideas. Judges do favour individualism as it “permits the avoidance of vulnerability and requires self-sufficiency. “ (Hoffmaster.2006; 36)
Colson will be able to use parental privilege as a defense. Unlike in Hunt and McReynolds where the accused were briefly in the child’s like, in this case, Ms. Colson has been living with her significant other, Ms. McCoy and her children, Brandy and Michael, for six years. Hunt, 973 N.E.2d. at 1; McReynolds, 973 N.E. 2d at 1154. Ms. Colson and Ms. McCoy treat their committed relationship as a marriage, this includes but is not limited to sharing household responsibilities and parental duties. Therefore, because Ms. Colson is not the “occasional babysitter” rather a parental figure, she is likely to have parental privilege. McReynolds, 973 N.E. 2d at 1154. However, like in Snow, where England, who was not the natural parent of J.H. classified as in loco parentis because of his voluntary parental obligation to J.H., here, Ms. Colson, also not the natural parent, voluntarily agreed to share the parental obligation to Ms. McCoy’s children. Marriage of Snow, 862 N.E.2D at 666. Therefore, because Ms. Colson can be classified as in loco parentis, she may use parental privilege as a complete defense. In this case, Ms. Colson gripped Bradley arm while she was trying to leave, leaving a handprint and bruises. Accordingly, Ms. Colson either knowingly or intentionally, just as the accused in Hunt and McReynolds, touched someone who is less than fourteen years old in a rude, insolating or in an angry manner. Hunt, 973 N.E.2d. at 3; McReynolds, 973 N.E. 2d at 1152. Therefore, Ms.