Causation 1 Flashcards
Explain the causation requirement in a criminal trial.
“The prosecution must prove (BRD) that the accused, through his act or omission or generation of a state of affairs, caused the necessary result or consequence.” - Campbell et al
Why are factual and legal causation not the same?
Public policy considerations e.g. Good samaritan scenario - Impact of rule on public behaviour and public confidence in the criminal justice system
What is the novus actus interveniens argument?
The argument is that an intervening act (e.g. the actions of a third party, such as a doctor who makes a mistake in treating the victim) has broken the chain connecting the accused’s act or omission to the harm.
Explain the significance of R v Jordan.
Hallett J’s direct and immediate cause of death test
Problematic - Quite probable that the initial aggressor won’t be criminally liable
Explain the significance of R v Smith.
Lord Parker CJ’s new test - Wound operating cause and substantial cause
“It seems to the court that if at the time of death the original wound is still an operating cause and a substantial cause, then the death can properly be said to be the result of the wound, albeit that some other cause of death is also operating.
Only if it can be said that the original wounding is merely the setting in which another cause operates can it be said that the death does not result from the wound. Putting it in another way, only if the second cause is so overwhelming as to make the original wound merely part of the history can it be said that the death does not flow from the wound.”
Explain the significance of R v Cheshire.
Beldam LJ’s new test - Significant contribution test
“the accused’s acts need not be the sole cause or even the main cause of death it being sufficient that his acts contributed significantly to that result.”
“It is not the function of the jury to evaluate competing causes or to choose which is dominant provided they are satisfied that the accused’s acts can fairly be said to have made a significant contribution to the victim’s death.”
“Even if more experienced doctors than those who attended the deceased would have recognised the rare complication in time to have prevented the deceased’s death, that complication was a direct consequence of the appellant’s acts which remained a significant cause of his death.”
Explain the significance of the People (AG) v McGrath?
Maguire CJ’s good Samaritan scenario reasoning - Initial aggressor set in motion the chain of events which led to the victim being dependent on the help of good Samaritans
“Any such interference was…a humane and well-intentioned act, brought about by the wrongful act of the applicant ; far from…cutting the chain of causation between the blow struck and the death, it formed a normal link in the chain.”
What is the causation requirement in a murder case?
More than a minimal contribution to the death of the victim
People (DPP) v Davis - Hardiman J - “it is sufficient if the injuries caused by the applicant were related to the death in more than a minimal way”
Explain the significance of DPP v Dune [2014] IECCA 29.
O’Donnell J - Relying on Davis’ more than a minimal contribution test, lapse of time and the ethical and lawful turning off of life support did not change the original injury being the cause of death, relied on Re a Ward of Court
Explain the significance of Dunne v DPP [2017] (SC)
Clear effort to find the initial aggressor criminal liable O’Malley J’s principles:
(i) Causation in homicide may be broken by exceptionally negligent medical treatment (as in R. v. Jordan (1956), where the victim was administered medication to which the medical personnel had reason to know he was intolerant), but it is not disrupted by conventional treatment even if there is evidence that the treatment offered might not have been the best available (Regina v. Smith [1959]).
(ii) A lawful and ethically proper decision to withdraw life support where there is a diagnosis of brain death does not mean that the original injury did not cause death if the injury inflicted is still an operational cause of the death ( Reg. v. Malcherek [1981] 1 W.L.R. 690 )
(iii) It is an aspect of the constitutional right to life that, in an appropriate case, a decision may be made that it is in the best interests of a patient to withdraw medical treatment of an invasive nature ( In re a Ward of Court (withholding medical treatment) (No. 2) [1996] 2 I.R. 79)
…Where such a decision is made, the cause of death remains the original injury unless there has been, in the intervening period, a true novus actus interveniens.
(iv) A novus actus interveniens in this context would be something that is so independent of the act of the accused that it should be regarded in law as the cause of death. The fact that the immediate cause of death is an act by a third party does not necessarily break the chain of causation where that act is brought about by the act of the accused and is itself lawful and reasonable (R. v. Pagett (1983) 76 Cr. App. Rep. 279 )
In any of these situations, which may arise in any case where the assault does not result in immediate death, the actual date of death will be influenced by factors beyond the actions of the accused. In the absence of a true novus actus interveniens that does not mean that that the chain of causation is broken.
“Where a person is shot in the head and thereby sustains serious brain injury, paramedics and medical professional personnel will where possible attempt to save the life of the victim. Such efforts may often mean that life will be prolonged to an extent that would not otherwise have been possible. In the modern era, that may well involve a brain injured victim surviving in a persistent vegetative state, or a condition akin to that, for a lengthy period of time.
That in turn may eventually produce a situation where a decision is properly and lawfully taken to withdraw a particular treatment. In the appropriate circumstances this must be seen as part of the range of appropriate medical treatments available. It is not open to the assailant, who brought about the situation whereby the victim required medical treatment, to argue that an otherwise appropriate choice of treatment from that range has altered his or her responsibility.”
“In this case, the decision made by the medical personnel, with the approval of Mr. Kenny’s father, did not involve the withdrawal of treatment. Rather, there was a decision not to embark upon a particular form of treatment. In the circumstances as they obtained, there has been no suggestion that there was anything remotely improper about this. It was not a decision to bring about or accelerate a death that would not otherwise have occurred – that would be unlawful – but to acknowledge the medical reality of the increasing likelihood that death was going to occur and that invasive methods of treatment would not be in Mr. Kenny’s best interests.”
“To hold, in these circumstances, that the act of the appellant caused the death does not involve visiting upon him the consequences of a decision made by others – it entails recognition of the fact that he is responsible for the condition that ultimately led to the death. Whether one describes his action as being an operating and substantial factor, or as a more than minimal factor, the result will be the same.”
What is causation test for manslaughter?
DPP v Joel - Birmingham J - Substantial cause of death; little to no mens rea, necessary to avoid creating an over-inclusive offence
“[I]n cases of what Glanville Williams, Textbook of Criminal Law , (2nd ed., Stevens & Sons, London, 1983) describes as incomplete mens rea , such as manslaughter, there is an argument that the de minimis test sets the threshold too low.
This court agrees with that view and is of the view that in cases of manslaughter, the jury should be told that the issue is whether the actions or omissions of the accused were a substantial cause of the death. Such an approach is consistent with fundamental constitutional principles. If the situation was otherwise (if we applied the Davis test) , it would mean that someone who had contributed to the death only minimally and whose contribution was dwarfed by the contribution of others could be solely made account.”
Explain the significance of People (DPP) v O’Loughlin [2021] IECA 107.
Questionable refinement/Incorrect interpretation of the Novus Actus Interveniens rule but note the determination to blame the initial aggressor as in Dunne.
Kennedy J –
* “[T]he trial judge stated that the question that has to be addressed in relation to the issue of novus actus interveniens is whether the act of that third party is so independent of the act of the accused that it should be regarded in law as the cause of death. She observed that the reality of the situation was that the deceased met his death as a result of being placed in the chute by the appellant. Even if the defence application were taken at its highest point i.e. that the cause of death was due to the bags blocking the passage down the chute, it would still be the position that the deceased came to be in the chute as a result of the actions of the appellant.”
- “In the present case the independent act contended for on the part of the appellant is the placing of the rubbish in the rubbish chute. However, an intervening act is an act which occurs after the actions of the accused person. In the present case, no act on the part of any third party intervened so as to operate as a novus actus interveniens, thus relieving the appellant of criminal responsibility. An intervening act is a fresh act which intervenes so as to break the chain of causation. This did not arise in the present case.”
Explain the significance of DPP v O’Loughlin [2021] (CoA).
Isobel Kennedy J:
Similar idea to Dunne - Even if cause of death was the bags blocking the passage down the shoot, the deceased still came to be in the chute due to the actions of the accused.
NAI limitation - “An intervening act is an act which occurs after the actions of the accused person” (bags in the chute beforehand)
Explain the significance of DPP v Murphy (SC?)
Causation may be inferred.
Kearns J - Causation fact issue for jury - “Abundant evidence” and confession in present case
Explain the significance of R v Blaue.
- Personal eggshell skull rule - JW stabbing victim refused a blood transfusion on religious belief grounds and died
- Lawton LJ - Reasonability issue and if do violence, take victim as find them; Assailant not reasonability judge. Stab wound still COD. - Important point with Dunne
