Scribd
Upload
149 views2 pages

Junior Respondent's Causation Argument

This skeleton argument relates to the appellant Johnson's appeal that the jury was not directed on causation and that there was a break in the chain of causation by contractors. It submits that Johnson satisfies the causation requirements for manslaughter through gross negligence, as his omissions as housing director created a dangerous situation and substantial factor in 20 deaths in a second fire, similar to precedents. It also argues that multiple causes do not undermine Johnson's liability as a but-for cause, and his failure to review a coroner's report did not introduce a new substantial intervening cause, so the chain of causation remained intact and he remains liable for manslaughter.

Uploaded by

mini dream
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
149 views2 pages

Junior Respondent's Causation Argument

This skeleton argument relates to the appellant Johnson's appeal that the jury was not directed on causation and that there was a break in the chain of causation by contractors. It submits that Johnson satisfies the causation requirements for manslaughter through gross negligence, as his omissions as housing director created a dangerous situation and substantial factor in 20 deaths in a second fire, similar to precedents. It also argues that multiple causes do not undermine Johnson's liability as a but-for cause, and his failure to review a coroner's report did not introduce a new substantial intervening cause, so the chain of causation remained intact and he remains liable for manslaughter.

Uploaded by

mini dream
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Skeleton 1: Junior Respondent

In the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)


BETWEEN:
Johnson
Appellant
-v–
R
Respondent
SKELETON ARGUMENT – JUNIOR RESPONDENT
Introduction:
1. This skeleton relates to the second ground of appeal. Namely that the crown court had not
failed to direct the jury on causation, and that there was no break in the chain of causation by the
contractors.
Submissions:
2. It can be said that Johnson satisfies the causation requirements when he omitted in his
responsibilities which ultimately resulted in the death of 20 people due to his gross negligence.
a. R v Pittwood established that an employee has a contractual obligation to
perform their duties, similar to Johnson’s case, the railway man’s omission
was liable for manslaughter.
b. Johnson was a substantial ‘but for’ case as he omitted from the standards
expected from a reasonable housing director.
c. Furthermore, Johnson’s negligence resulted in a dangerous situation being
created after the first fire, and as R v Evans established, a duty of care arose
as a result.

3. R v Benge demonstrates that despite there being multiple causes, this doesn’t
undermine the fact that D was a ‘but for’ cause as well and therefore liable as well.
a. His omission in overseeing acted as substantial factor in the second fire at faulty
towers, and subsequently the 20 deaths.
b. In R v Smith[1959] it was held that a break in the chain of causation”… a new
cause which disturbs the sequence of events…”, as in Johnson’s case his omission
to read the coroner’s report stopped there being a new cause to be a more
substantial cause than himself, in the deaths.
For these reasons, it is submitted, Johnson is still liable for manslaughter as he was a
substantial cause and that there was no break in the chain of causation. For these
reasons, we respectfully request your lordships to deny this appeal.
R v Pittwood
R v Evans
R v Benge and Another [1865] 176 E.R. 665
R v Smith [1959] 2 Q.B. 35

You might also like