A correspondent has written and drawn my attention to:

Two NT cases are not directly related to emergency workers, but do remind readers of the unique duty to rescue imposed by Northern Territory legislation. In both cases, the defendant was accused of failing to render assistance to their partner who was either injured or had ingested poison. One case was dropped, and the other has yet to go to trial, so in neither case have the allegations been proven, but that isn’t particularly important to readers interested in the law itself.

Elements of the law that I find interesting are:

– The positive duty to rescue is not just a civil matter; it is a criminal offence, punishable by 7 years imprisonment (section 155), and

– In the more recent case, the accused has been charged with manslaughter, which the news articles imply is also due to his failure to rescue. Have I understood correctly that the law provides that the failure to rescue also makes one responsible for the outcome itself (149C)?

– Finally, the next section (155A) of the Act seems to provide a much broader offence of obstructing a rescuer than in other states: it is not just an offence to obstruct an emergency worker, but in fact anyone providing rescue, including protecting property!

I just thought all this was interesting.

Links:

I’m not going to comment on a case that was withdrawn and we don’t know enough about the second case to make any useful comment on it. The news article linked to above is really about alleged breaches of bail rather than the substantive offences.

So what do we know? Yes the Criminal Code of the NT imposes a criminal offence of fail to rescue.  Section 155 says:

Any person who, being able to provide rescue, resuscitation, medical treatment, first aid or succour of any kind to a person urgently in need of it and whose life may be endangered if it is not provided, callously fails to do so is guilty of an offence and is liable to imprisonment for 7 years.

That provision is unique in Australia.

Section 149C says ‘For this Part, a person’s conduct causes death or harm if it substantially contributes to the death or harm.’  That does not mean ‘the failure to rescue also makes one responsible for the outcome itself’; it would have to be proven that if the person had made some attempt to rescue the outcome would have been different.  If the failure to rescue makes no difference to the outcome eg the person’s injuries were going to be fatal no matter what happened then no, the failure to rescue does not make one liable for the poor outcome.  A duty to rescue is not a duty to guarantee a good outcome.

Manslaughter can be established if it can be shown that the accused caused the death of the deceased (and s 149C would be relevant) and the person is reckless or negligent as to causing death or injury (s 160).  Section 43AK(1) says:

A person is reckless in relation to a result if:

(a) the person is aware of a substantial risk that the result will happen; and

(b) having regard to the circumstances known to the person, it is unjustifiable to take the risk.

In the context a person would have to know that there is a substantial risk that the person will die or suffer an injury and it would have to be shown that their failure to rescue substantially contributed to that outcome (and as noted above, that may not be the case).  One assumes that the Crown might prefer to bring a case of manslaughter in the most egregious cases of fail to rescue and of course only where the victim dies.  One can imagine that ‘fail to rescue’ could serve as a ‘backup’ charge to manslaughter.

And yes s 155A makes it an offence to unlawfully assault, obstruct or hinder

… another person:

(a) who is providing rescue, resuscitation, medical treatment, first aid or succour of any kind to a third person;

(b) who is taking action to prevent injury or further injury to a third person who is in immediate risk of injury or further injury; or

(c) who is taking action to prevent damage or further damage to property that is in immediate risk of damage or further damage,

The person who is assaulted, obstructed or hindered does not have to be a police or ambulance officer.

This blog is a general discussion of legal principles only.  It is not legal advice. Do not rely on the information here to make decisions regarding your legal position or to make decisions that affect your legal rights or responsibilities. For advice on your particular circumstances always consult an admitted legal practitioner in your state or territory.