Actus Reus (Causation) - Cases Flashcards
R v White (1910)
Causation - but for test - causal link between actions and consequences must be shown
D put cyanide into his mother’s lemonade drink, but she died of heart failure before the poison could kill her. The answer to the question ‘But for what the defendant did would she have died?’ is ‘No’. She would have died anyway.
Principle – He was acquitted of murder because he had not actually caused his mother’s death.
Guilty of attempted murder
R v Cheshire (1991)
Case Law
Causation - medical treatment not novus actus interveniens - sole or main cause
D shot V in an argument in a chip shop, and V was taken to hospital where a tracheotomy was performed. Six weeks later, V suffered breathing problems because of the tracheotomy scar and died. The hospital had been negligent - perhaps even reckless - in not recognizing the likely cause of V’s problems and responding to them.
Principle – This did not break the chain of causation from the shooting. D’s actions need not be the sole or even the main cause of death as long as they contributed significantly to that result; medical negligence did not exclude D’s liability unless it was so independent of his acts and so potent as to make his own contribution insignificant. Only in the most extraordinary and unusual case would treatment, whether right or wrong, given in good faith by a generally competent doctor, be regarded as independent of the original injury.
Guilty
R v Smith (1959)
Case Law
Causation - must be operating and substantial – medical novus must be palpably wrong
D stabbed V with a bayonet during a fight in barracks. V’s friend took him to the first aid post, but on the way, he dropped V twice. At the first aid post the medical officer was busy and took some time to get to V who died about two hours after the stabbing. Had he been given proper treatment he would probably have recovered.
Principle – The treatment he was given was thoroughly bad and might well have affected his chances of recovery, but medical treatment correct or not does not break the chain of causation. If at the time of death the original wound is still an operating cause and a substantial cause, then death can be said to be a result of the wound albeit that some other cause is also operating. Only when the second cause of death is so overwhelming as to make the original wound merely part of the history can it be said that death does not flow from the wound.
Guilty
R v Jordan (1956)
Case Law
Causation - medical treatment not novus actus interveniens - unless medical treatment palpably wrong
D stabbed V, and V died from bronchopneumonia in hospital about a week later when the original wound was healing well. New evidence not available at the trial indicated that the bronchopneumonia was probably caused by B’s unusual reaction to terramycin (which had been given even after his allergy had been discovered) and/or by an excess dose of intravenous fluids.
Principle – The medical treatment was ‘palpably wrong’ and would have ‘precluded’ a jury from holding that death was caused by D’s action.
Not Guilty of Murder
R v Pagett (1983)
Case Law
Causation - multiple causes, not sole cause but significant contribution
To avoid arrest, the defendant used his pregnant girlfriend as a shield and fired at armed police. The police returned fire, hitting and killing the girl. The defendant was held to be the legal cause of death despite causing no physical injury himself as he set in motion the chain of events that led to death and it was foreseeable that the police would return fire.
Principle – It was held that the defendant’s act need not be the sole cause, or even the main cause of death provided it is a cause in that it ‘contributed significantly to that result’.
Guilty
R v Roberts (1972)
Case Law
Causation - intervening acts, victim’s reaction, escape cases
Facts - The defendant interfered with the victim’s clothing whilst she was a passenger in his car. She jumped from the moving vehicle and sustained serious injuries in the fall. The defendant denied causing these injuries but his conviction was upheld as it was foreseeable that the victim would attempt to escape and could be injured in doing so.
Principle – The chain of causation will be broken only if the victim’s actions were ‘so daft’ as to be unforeseeable.
Guilty
R v Williams (1992)
Case Law
Causation - intervening acts, victim’s reaction, escape cases
Facts - The victim jumped out of a moving car because he alleged that there had been an attempt to steal his wallet.
Principle – Because this was held to be an unreasonable reaction under the circumstances , and disproportionate to the threat, it was held that the chain of causation had been broken by the victim’s intervening act. The defendant was not liable for the victim’s injuries.
Not guilty of the injuries to victim.
R v Blaue (1992)
Case Law
Causation – novus actus interveniens - death occurring from V’s own actions does not break causation – think skull rule
Facts - D stabbed an 18-year-old woman V and punctured her lung. At the hospital, V was told she would need a blood transfusion to save her life, but refused this as contrary to her religious beliefs (she was a Jehovah’s Witness). She died next day.
Principle – It has long been the policy of the law that those who use violence on other people must take their victims as they find them. This principle clearly applies to the mental as well as the physical characteristics of the victim, and the courts will rarely make a judgement as to whether the victim’s response was reasonable.
Guilty of manslaughter (diminished responsibility)
R v Malcherek and Steel (1981)
Case Law
Causation – medical treatment not novus actus
Facts - D stabbed his wife who was taken to hospital and put on a life support machine. She suffered two heart failures and after ten days had irretrievable brain damage. The doctors switched off the machine.
Principle – The doctors’ decision did not break the chain of causation; D’s act could be regarded as the cause of V’s death.
Guilty
