Section 39: Fill & Download for Free

We’ve now had the inquest findings and verdict, which concluded that the following sequence of events took place:Boy A, being an idiot, decides to randomly flick cheese at Boy B, after being handed it by Boy C, for reasons he cannot explain.Boy B informs Boy A of his cheese allergy after the cheese lands on his neck, making skin contact.Boy A apologises to Boy B, and makes his way to class. Boy A does not know how serious allergies can be, and believes that you can only get a rash.Boy B suffers an extreme allergic reaction to the cheese, due to an unknown mechanism that a specialist paediatric allergy consultant told the court ‘If it was skin contact alone that caused, in this case fatal, anaphylaxis, I believe that to be unprecedented‘.Boy B is administered Adrenaline within a few minutes from an expired EpiPen, which does not control the reaction. An ambulance is already on its way.Boy B suffers cardiac arrest prior to additional treatment, and ultimately passes away a fortnight later in hospital.The coroner recorded a narrative verdict, which concluded that other students should have been made more fully aware of his condition, that the school should have replaced the EpiPen when it expired and that his allergy action plan should have been included in the medical box at the school.Under UK law, the two boys who were responsible for the cheese throwing can be prosecuted, and could be charged with manslaughter, as they were responsible for a section 39 assault which resulted in a death. However, this would struggle to meet the public interest test, and would also struggle to pass the one of the legal tests for manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act, “Would a reasonable person realise that the defendant's act was bound to subject some other person to the risk of physical harm?”In this case, a reasonable person would, if they didn’t know of the allergy, not reasonably believe that there was any risk of physical harm. The medical evidence that this is an ‘unprecedented’ event does not protect the throwers by itself, but it creates further evidence that physical harm could not be reasonably foreseen.In conclusion, the CPS (Prosecutors) will have asked these same questions prior to the inquest, and chose not to bring criminal charges of any kind against either of the boys involved in throwing the cheese. The fact that both of them will have to live the rest of their lives knowing that their actions ended someone’s life is quite sufficient punishment.

Alex K. Chen has a great answer, so I'll just shortly add one element. Even though the maximum prison sentence in Norway is 21 years, a person can be kept in prison far longer if they are deemed a threat to society. The sentencing can then be extended by up to 5 years at a time. Thus, a sentencing can be indefinite and potentially for life.You can find more information about this is section 39 c–h in http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/NOR_penal_code.pdf, or if you know Norwegian, in http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/jd/dok/regpubl/otprp/20032004/otprp-nr-90-2003-2004-/21.html.

Yes…the Australian Navy…in the Naval Discipline Act there are 38 sections describing all sorts of offences, from treason, murder, theft to insubordination and being AWOL…Then, there is the infamous “ Section 39 “…which from memory, states “ Any offence not stated in the previous 38 sections, is covered by this section “…or words to that affect.So, virtually anything can be covered under section 39,that is not specifically covered by the other 38.I had a mate of mine who was run in on a Section 39, for putting tobasco sauce, in a tomato sauce bottle as a joke…some people didn’t find it funny.