1.3 Results or consequences as part of AR

Question 1

Result crime

Answer 1

crimes which require a result

rules of causation apply

Question 2

Factual causation is

Answer 2

the “but for” test

Question 3

White

Answer 3

not established - cyanide did not kill her, unrelated heart failure did, so convicted of attempted murder, not murder

Question 4

Benge

Answer 4

track was up when train came. guilty of manslaughter. Immaterial that other staff also negligent

Question 5

Dalloway

Answer 5

Gross negligence manslaughter. Even if he had not been driving negligently, D would not have been able to avoid hitting V even if he was driving properly

D’s negligent driving (act) was not legal cause of death

Question 6

Smith 1959 and Cato 1976

Answer 6

D’s conduct must be “more than a minimal contribution”

Question 7

Legal causation test 3:

The chain will be broken by a “new intervening act”

Answer 7

1. acts of third parties
2. medical profession
3. natural events
4. refusal of medical treatment (by V) & pre-existing conditions (of V)
5. self-harm (by V)
6. heroin (taken by V)
7. escape (by V)

Question 8

Pagett

Rafferty

Answer 8

conduct of third party is “free, deliberate and informed”

Pagett - conduct of police was not a “free” reaction

Rafferty - D left scene meanwhile V drowned by others. D = manslaughter but quashed on appeal. Other’s conduct broke chain of causation

Question 9

Jordan

Answer 9

D stabbed V but administration of drug by doctors, which V was allergic to, broke the chain of causation (“palpably wrong”)
Wound was healing and was part of the history.
Rarely breaks the chain of causation.

Question 10

Smith

Answer 10

D stabbed V and was given “thoroughly bad” treatment which affected chance of recovery. Conviction upheld on appeal as original act still “operating and substantial cause of death”

Question 11

Cheshire

Answer 11

D shot V and whilst healing, tracheotomy led to narrowing of windpipe which went undetected.

Positive act of negligence will break the chain but omission (as in Cheshire) will not.

Question 12

Perkins

Answer 12

D leaves V in building which is destroyed by earthquake. Intervening act not foreseeable.

D leaves V on beach with incoming tide. Intervening act foreseeable and D’s conduct is operating and substantial cause of death.

Question 13

4. refusal of medical treatment and pre-existing conditions

Answer 13

will not break chain if D’s original act/omission remains an “operating and substantial” cause of result

Question 14

Holland

Answer 14

D cut V’s finger and despite warnings, refused amputation and later died of lockjaw.

D guilty of murder. No break in the chain

Question 15

Blaue

Answer 15

V (jehovah) refused blood transfusion and D guilty of manslaughter

“take his victim as he finds him” “thin skull rule”

Question 16

4. pre-existing condition

Answer 16

In offences against the person, D will be legal cause of the result even though normal person would not suffer the result - Dyson (child died of meningitis but D was legal cause)

Question 17

Hayward

Answer 17

D guilty of manslaughter of wife who died of heart failure when running away from him. D had to take V as he found her.

Question 18

Dear

Answer 18

D injured V after V sexually assaulted D’s child. V, depressed, picked at wounds and died of blood loss.
D was legal cause of V’s death even though V was mentally depressed
Pre-existing condition does not prevent D from being legal cause of result

Question 19

People v Lewis

Answer 19

V who had fatal gunshot wound slit throat and died. D guilty of manslaughter - wound still significant and operating cause of death

Question 20

Dhaliwal

Answer 20

V hanged herself after abuse from D.

case stopped by CoA - no medical evidence that abuse caused distress

Question 21

Cato

Answer 21

D injected V with heroin and V later died.
D caused death factually and legally
Unlawful act manslaughter

Question 22

Kennedy (No. 2)

Answer 22

D supplied syringe but V administered and later died.
Held that the free, voluntary and informed act of V broke chain.
D not guilty.

Question 23

7. escape cases (“fright and flight”)

Answer 23

Roberts - V jumped from moving car to avoid assault by D and suffered actual bodily harm.
HELD D’s conduct remained the operation and substantial cause of the result
Escape reasonably foreseeable

Question 24

Corbett

Answer 24

D caused V death when V made reasonably foreseeable attempt to escape beating by D but was run over by car.

Question 25

Williams

Answer 25

V jumped from car when D’s attempted to rob him and later died.
HELD that judge should direct jury to “reasonable foreseeability” test and whether behaviour was “daft”

Question 26

Marjoram

Answer 26

V fell from window
Defence claimed result was not foreseeable to him given his age.
HELD test of causation is objective and reasonable person is not the D, but the V.
What would an ordinary person think would happen given age, sex and character of V?

Question 27

Michael

Answer 27

D guilty of murdering child even though medicine administered by sibling rather than intended nanny

Question 28

Clarke and Morabir

Answer 28

HELD jury not bound to follow expert evidence and final decision whether D factually and legally caused death was for jury.

Question 29

Wallace

Answer 29

D charged with murder after throwing acid over V who subsequently suffered distress leading him to be euthanized in Belgium the following year.

Question 30

What was the question for the CoA in Wallace?

Answer 30

whether actions of doctors in administering euthanasia broke the chain of causation and whether D could be charged with murder

Question 31

CoA decision in Wallace

Answer 31

1. D cannot be held responsible for act of a person of sound mind (following Kennedy (No.2) heroin case
2. however it was clear that but for D’s actions, V would not have requested euthanasia
3. there was direct link between injuries and death. (V’s death and request for euthanasia were not free, voluntary and informed which is what is required for them to break the chain)
4. although V’s request for euthanasia was “voluntary”, it was not voluntary in in terms of the legal issues on causation.

Entitled to bring murder charge and retrial.

Question 32

Kimsey

Answer 32

D’s act/omission had to be “something more than a slight or trifling link”