>

> I think that would depend on whether the victim was, in fact, relying on

> the religious character of the meal - in other words, whether he said to

> himself "Ordinarily I wouldn't take the risk, given my allergy, but

> surely I'll be safe at a Sikh wedding!".  If he was thinking that, then

> luck doesn't come into it, and I don't think Andrew's point is good.

>

> Unfortunately, the only person who could tell us what went through the

> victim's mind is dead.

>

On reflection, I think that this is what is troubling about the result. To

show that the defendant committed a wrong with respect to the deceased, we

need a finding that, on the balance of probabilities, the deceased did

reason in precisely this way. As far as I can tell, the TJ doesn't

squarely address tis question. Perhaps Moore-Bick LJ thinks this is made

out where he says the deceased had 'every reason' to so rely.

R