Intro to Law - Outline of Essay

The scenario of this case a very complex matter in terms of the law, on the one hand you have the breach of gun/firearms laws and criminal negligence and on the other hand you have involuntary harm to another person. In order to hold the correct person liable, we must first examine the core facts and issues of this case which will enable the application of the law to these facts, allowing the DPP to be advised in the most suitable and accurate manner.

The first and foremost issue to be noted in this case is that of Francis carelessly shooting his gun in the direction of Nigel and also that of Nigel responding and in turn shooting towards Francis. Had Francis not fired his gun towards Nigel could there be a possibility that Nigel would not in turn shoot back at Francis causing Aiden to be wounded in the crossfire? Was Francis acting in this manner due to provocation from Nigel? Could it also be possible that Nigel reacted and shot back at Francis in self defence with the fear of being shot himself driving him? Could Nigel have fired back due to provocation from Francis? If these initial events had not happened is it possible that Aiden would still be alive today? Upon deciding to bring the victim to hospital, Nigel criticized Francis’s method of carrying Aiden (an issue which is not in clear violation of any law) leading to Francis abandoning Aiden and leaving the scene and Nigel carrying the victim in a very poor manner back towards to car. Had Francis continued carrying Aiden to the car, would this had meant that his medical condition would not have deteriorated due to poor care carried out by Nigel afterwards? Even though Francis did not shoot Aiden, would the fact that he assumed a liable role to help bring the victim to hospital, though not legally obliged to do so, but then decided to leave half way through render him guilty of breaking a law because he did not carry out the act of choosing to assist a victim in need of medical care to the best of his