Actus Reus and Causation

Question 1

R v Poulton [1832]

Answer 1

Child must be fully expelled from the mother’s body and born alive to be “a reasonable human being”

Question 2

AG-Ref (No 3 of 1994 [1998]

Answer 2

Following stabbing of a pregnant woman, child was born prematurely and died – held child was not a live person so wasn’t murder.

Question 3

R v Adebolajo [2014]

Answer 3

Under the queen’s peace means jurisdiction.

Question 4

R v White [1910]

But For Test

Factual Causation

Answer 4

Factually, must be proved that ‘but for’ the acts of the accused, the relevant consequence would not have occurred in the way that it did.

W put poison in a drink intending to kill mother. Mother died but had not drunk any of the liquid. Had died of heart failure, not poisoning. Therefore, W not guilty of murder. Was guilty of attempted murder.

Question 5

R v Dyson [1908]

But For Test

Factual Causation

Answer 5

Any action which accelerates death is enough to satisfy “but for” test

Child had meningitis. D through her down the stairs and she died. Argued she would have died anyway so not murder, but the action accelerated its cause so guilty.

Question 6

R v Pagett [1983]

Legal Causation

Answer 6

Defendant’s action must be the operating and substantial cause of the prohibited consequence

Question 7

R v Dalloway (1847)

Legal Causation

Answer 7

• The Consequence MUST be caused by the Defendant’s Culpable Act
• D driving a horse and cart without holding the reins. Child ran in front of the cart and died. Held child would have died, even if D had been holding the reins. Therefore, conduct not to blame for killing, and acquitted of manslaughter.

Question 8

R v Benge (1865)

Legal Causation

Answer 8

• The Defendant’s Act NEED NOT be the ONLY Cause of the Prohibited Consequence
• A defendant can still be liable even when other causes are present. B was foreman of rail tracklayers. Instructed them to take up track as didn’t think next train due for several hours. Sent signalman down track to warn drivers. Driver didn’t see him and crashed, killing several people. Held: defendant’s negligence mainly or substantially caused the accident

Question 9

R v Cato [1976]

Legal Causation

Answer 9

• The Defendant’s Act MUST be the SUBSTANTIAL Cause of the Prohibited Harm
• substantial does not mean “really serious”. It means an act/omission that is not de minimus, a trifling one.

Question 10

R v Smith [1959]

Intervening Acts

Medical Negligence

Answer 10

• Courts are reluctant to allow medical malpractice to break chain of causation
• Smith stabbed victim; another soldier carried him to hospital and dropped him twice where he then received inappropriate treatment. Held: Smith convicted of murder because his actions remained substantial and operating cause.

Question 11

R v Cheshire [1991]

Intervening Acts

Medical Negligence

Answer 11

• Courts are reluctant to allow medical malpractice to break chain of causation
• Cheshire shot the victim twice. In surgery required tracheotomy; scar tissue formed over tracheotomy hole so couldn’t breathe; medical staff dismissed as anxiety. Held: poor medical treatment didn’t break chain.

Question 12

R v Pagett (1983)

Intervening Acts

Third Parties

Answer 12

• May only be a break in chain of causation if the actions of the third party were ‘free, deliberate and informed’.
• P used his pregnant girlfriend as a shield whilst shooting at police. Police returned fire and killed the girl. Judge directed jurors, stating they had to be sure appellant had fired first at the officers and that caused the officers to fire back, causing the girl to be killed. Jury also had to be sure police acted reasonably. Held: Pagett was guilty. Appealed to CoA who rejected the appeal
• This was held not to be the case here.

Question 13

R v Hayward [1908]

Thin Skull Rule

Answer 13

Defendant must take the victim as they find them

• Hayward threatened and chased his wife into the road. She collapsed and died. Was suffering from abnormal thyroid condition. Held – Hayward caused the death.

Question 14

R v Roberts [1972]

Intervening Acts

Acts of the Victim

Answer 14

Acts of escape must be foreseeable to the reasonable man

• Victim jumped out of R’s moving car to escape sexual advances. This was not seen as an unexpected consequence so Roberts was convicted of assault.

Question 15

R v Williams & Davis [1992]

Intervening Acts

Acts of the Victim

Answer 15

‘There must be some proportionality between the gravity of the threat and the action of the deceased in seeking to escape from it.’ – LJ Stuart Smith

Question 16

R v Holland [1841]

Intervening Acts

Refusal of Medical Treatment

Answer 16

Victim’s refusal to accept treatment is not a defence.

Deceased attacked by Holland and suffered a number of wounds, including severely cut finger. Surgeon advised amputation and victim ignored advice. Contracted tetanus and died. The wound was the real cause; not the refusal to accept treatment.

Question 17

R v Blaue [1975]

Intervening Acts

Refusal of Medical Treatment

Answer 17

Refusing medical treatment on grounds of religious beliefs does not break chain of causation.

Blaue stabbed a woman piercing her lung. Victim refused to have a blood transfusion and died as contrary to religious beliefs. Advised she would die if she didn’t. Blaue was convicted and appealed on novus actus. HELD – argument rejected. Have to take victim as find them which included religious beliefs.

Question 18

R v Wallace [2018]

Intervening Acts

Suicide

Answer 18

Choosing to commit suicide as a result of a defendant’s act is a free and voluntary choice, and so will break the chain of causation.

Victim’s choice to commit suicide as a result of a defendant’s unlawful act does not necessarily break the chain of causation. W convicted of murder when threw sulphuric acid over victim causing injuries which led him to end his life.