Look back to the beginning. Speculative question to clinicians about 21 errors we know no details of. I only answered to point that out.
-
-
I'm afraid I cannot agree. You cannot have a universal duty of care when you don't hold all of the competencies or availabilities to deliver it. This is not a test at the level of gross vs not gross. This is a test at the level of how capable a duty could be delivered...
-
...at the moment the assessment is merely one of principle. In principle does that duty exist. The pragmatic reality is that in these overstretched over burdened environments, it is deeply compromised before you even step in there...
-
...the assessment of gross, and therefore the definition of the crime itself is also left to the jurors, which seems wrong. But the idea that a balanced assessment of individual culpability is properly explored against the systemic culpability is wrong...
-
...to truly know what the system contribution was, and therefore what the individual culpability is, requires a very thorough judicial exploration of the system & at the very least an independent one. Anything less allows the corporation & hierarchy to scapegoat the individual...
-
...and it is quite impossible and totally unrealistic to expect a defence team to be able to run that investigation through themselves, compelling organisational openness.
-
Morning! :) You’re right Jamie, I’m afraid we don’t agree on this area. But you raise multiple points in making your case, so let me try and cover them as best I can:
-
I believe the duty of care does apply to an individual in this setting, even though I do agree that the environment should be taken into account. And if this image is correct, then it appears the legal process does indeed account for it via ‘the circumstances of the defendant’ >pic.twitter.com/lsPgLN29eT
-
But as I’ve suggested previously, it’s entirely possible to be personally grossly negligent, even if placed in an environment that is inadequate. >
- 8 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
But tricky though. It was the same judge as in the
#DavidSellu case. The law about how to direct a GNM jury was unclear until his appeal. -
I can see the obvious concern, but depending on timing (?), could it not be argued that he was better placed than anyone to direct the next jury? Timing aside, the High Court ruling certainly says he "correctly directed the jury" re the "truly exceptionally bad" part.
-
Well that covers the timing point. Thank you. Interesting to see Dan's response to you that Sellu was raised in one of the appeals too.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.