From the facts in this scenario Jim has committed to two crimes which have a chain of causation. The first crime is Aggravated Assault while the second crime is Murder which was occasioned by the first crime. Based on the foregoing it is important to assess whether Jim is criminal liable for Murder and Aggravated Assault.
Aggravated Assault is defined as an attempt to cause serious bodily harm to a person with total disregard to the person’s life. The common elements of an aggravated assault entail the intent of the perpetrator, degree of the injury caused and status of the victim as well as the use of a weapon. It is also important to note that aggravated assault is categorized as a felony. The landmark case of R v Donovan emphasized on the need for all elements to be proved in order for an alleged perpetrator to be found guilty.
Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another human being. The circumstances for murder to be considered are such as: – if the alleged perpetrator had the intentions of causing the death of the person killed, if the alleged perpetrator intends to cause grievous harm to the person killed, if the alleged perpetrator intends to cause grievous harm to a person with the aim of carrying out another offence which is such that the alleged perpetrator risks being arrested without a warrant since he is at flight risk.
From the facts it is indicated that Jim, Jeff and Jamal were about to commit a robbery when they encountered Fred and Frieda. Jim and Jamal violently attacked Fred by pushing him to the ground and kicking him in the head and stamping on his phone. It should also be noted that while beating Fred, the young lads were armed with sawn-off shotguns. It is evident that all the elements of aggravated assault have been met which makes Jim guilty of the offence. For starters the intent of attacking Fred was to scare and injure him; secondly the attack was carried out when Jim had a shotgun that is regarded as a weapon, from the way Jim and Jeff attacked Fred they had bad intentions which is quite evident from the fatal injuries that Jeff sustained and further resulted to his demise. Last but not least the reason as to why Jim attacked Fred was because he was about to commit a crime therefore he feared being arrested at any moment.
Secondly the offence of murder applies to Jim because he had the intention of causing grievous bodily harm to Fred. This is evident from the act of violently pushing Fred to the goring and kicking him in the head. It is such reckless and merciless actions which led to Fred’s demise after his injuries got the better of him. In addition to that Jim caused the grievous harm to Fred because he was fearful that he might be exposed for the first crime which he was about to commit. Based on the foregoing Jim is also guilty of the offence of murder which emanated from the vicious attack.
The best possible defenses available to Jim for the first offence which is aggravated assault are such as: – intoxication and self defense. Jim has the option of arguing that he was intoxicated at the time he was committing the offence therefore he was not in the right state of mind. On the other hand Jim can argue that he attacked Fred as a way of self defense since he felt threatened.
As for the second offence of murder Jim can defend himself by arguing that he committed the offence under duress. This means that he was acting on Jeff’s orders which were not just orders but also threats to his life. Duress means he did not intend to carry out the offence and only did so to save his life.
In light of the foregoing, Jim is indeed criminally liable for the offence of murder and aggravated assault. In this situation Jim’s actions can be directly linked to Fred’s death because he had both actus reus and mens rea to commit murder by violently attacking Fred. This has been proved by all the above mentioned elements of murder.
From the facts in the scenario given, Jeff accompanied Jim and Jamal to the park where they were planning to rob a jeweler shop in town with sawn-off shotguns. When Jim and Jamal went to attack Fred after they suspected him of calling the police, Jeff was at the scene and he watched as his fellow accomplices attacked Fred viciously. The injuries were fatal therefore Fred had to be rushed to hospital. In light of the foregoing it is important to analyze whether Jeff is an accomplice to the crimes committed by Jim. Specifically the said crimes are murder and aggravated assault.
A person who knowingly, voluntarily, or intentionally gives assistance to another in (or in some cases fails to prevent another from) the commission of a crime. An accomplice is criminally liable to the same extent as the principal. An accomplice, unlike an accessory is typically present when the crime is committed. 
The mere fact that Jeff was at the scene and he watched as his fellow accomplices attacked Fred viciously makes him an accomplice. The injuries were fatal therefore Fred had to be rushed to hospital. In addition to that he failed to do anything to stop the attack against Fred which means he condoned the criminal acts of both Jim and Jamal. This makes Jeff criminally liable for the offences committed by Jim and Jamal. The only difference between Jeff and Jim or Jamal is that his level of liability is not on the same level as that of Jim and Jamal. This is because he did not directly participate in the offences.
The best possible defense for Jeff is undue influence. He can argue that Jim and Jamal wrongly influenced him to be at the park at that time that they were committing the offences.
Based on the foregoing Jeff is indeed criminally liable for the offence of murder and aggravated assault only as an accomplice to both crimes. In this scenario the chain of causation from Jeff’s action can be linked to Fred’s death by the mere fact that he was present at the time the attack was happening.
Based on the facts given in the scenario, Fred was taken to the hospital where he was conscious but in need of immediate surgery in order to save his life. George was tasked with saving Fred’s life by carrying out an operation on him. During the operation, George lost concentration for a moment and failed to notice that the anaesthetic was running low. As a result of George’s failure, Fred began to wake up and before it was possible to put him under again he went into shock and died. It is therefore important to analyze the criminal liability of George’s omission which led to the loss of Fred’s life. This translates to medical negligence.
Medical negligence is substandard care that’s been provided by a medical professional to a patient, which has directly caused injury or caused an existing condition to get worse. There’s a number of ways that medical negligence can happen such as misdiagnosis, incorrect treatment or surgical mistakes.In order for Fred’s case to be successful, there is need to prove that he received negligent treatment which caused an injury or contributed to making an existing condition worse. Medical negligence only requires proof of the act and the result and/or outcome of the action or omission carried out by the medical personnel.
In this case George was not in good shape as he was attending to Fred. This is evident from the fact that he was just from completing a 20-hour shift, which has been necessitated by an influx of Covid-19 patients. In light of the foregoing this can be termed as the starting point of the chain of causation that eventually leads to the death of Fred which could have been avoided. Secondly the act or omission in question came about when George lost concentration and failed to notice that the anaesthetic was running low. This is a very serious omission on George’s part which is known to him since he is a professional medical personnel. In order to prove that George was indeed criminally liable for Fred’s death we need to carry out the reasonable man’s test and duty of care. As per the reasonable man’s test, any competent and qualified doctor would not have failed to notice that the anaesthetic was running low. In addition to that as a doctor, George owed all his clients, Fred included, a duty of care at all material times that he is treating them. It is quite evident that none of these elements were observed and that is why Fred died.
In this case the only defense available to George is the defense of contributory negligence. George has the option of arguing that Fred and to some extension Frieda contributed to the death because they agreed to the operation despite the fact that the doctor was not in the right physical and mental condition to carry out the operation because he had just come from a 20 hour shift that was extremely necessary due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
In light of the foregoing, George is indeed criminally liable for medical negligence which resulted to the death of Fred. This can be escalated to murder because Fred’s death was evitable and it is the negligent omission of George that led to his death.
 Berry v Superior Court 256 Cal. Rptr. 344 (1989)
 Larson, Aaron. “What are the Crimes of Assault and Battery”. Expert Law.
 (1934) 2 KB 498
 State v Harris 69 Wn. 2d 928 (1966) 421 P. 2d 662
 R v McInyre (2009) NSWCCA 305
 Cross, Rupert and Jones, Philip Asterley: An Introduction to Criminal Law (London: Butter Worths, (1964) (Filth Edition) pp. 133 – 134.
 Phillip E. Johnson & Morgan Cloud, Criminal Law: Cases, Materials and Text (7th ed. West Group 2002) p.206
 People v Aaron 299 N.W.2d 304 (1980)
 Goswick v State 143 So. 2d 817 (1962)
 Waddington v Sarausad 129 S.Ct 823 (2009)
 Akinleye v East Sussex Hospitals NHS Trust (2008) EWHC 68 (QB)
 Alexander Glancy v The Southern General Hospital NHS Trust (2013)
 Alexander Glancy v The Southern General Hospital NHS Trust (2013) CSOH
 Bonnie, R.J et al. Criminal Law, Second Edition, Foundation Press, New York, NY: 2004, p. 858