Causation Flashcards
DPP v Joel [2016] - Key case summary (causation)
Woman with MS goes to live with her daughter and her daughter’s boyfriend. Give key case summary including what part of the case specifically relates to causation
Why are factual and legal causation not the same?
Because of public policy: fairness and how law will shape the behaviour of the public.
Define novus actus interveniens
An intervening act (eg the actions of a third party, such as a doctor who makes a mistake in treating the victim) that has broken the chain connecting the accused’s act or omission to the harm done to the victim.
R v Jordan (1956)
American Buffalo Soldier gets into a fight with a British servicemember at a bar. British service member is stabbed by Jordan. He was in the process of healing/recovering when hospital doctors provided two treatments that harmed the patient (antibiotic to which victim was allergic and given too much fluid, which impaired lung function). This “palpably wrong medical treatment” was found on appeal to be the “immediate and direct cause” of the patient’s death. Also can be noted as a public policy case because the US government did exert diplomatic pressure, as when Jordan was initially convicted he would have been executed.
R v Smith (1959)
British solider in Germany, stabbing someone with a bayonnet in a rival regiment when a fight broke out. Series of unfortunate events transpired in getting the victim to hospital. In addition, victim was unable to receive blood transfusion and received other bad medical treatment. Smith’s conviction upheld, with court saying, “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.”
Said Jordan did not apply because of “particular facts” but also noted at the time of the victim’s death in Jordan the victim had been recovering from his wounds.
R v Cheshire (1991)
Chesire shot a man in a fish and chips shop, who was taken to hospital. Victim eventually died in hospital because of problems with intubation - trachea was very narrow and breathing tubes used caused significant problems. R v. Jordan was not relied upon, noting “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.”
Seen as a lower threshold than R v Smith because significant is lesser than substantial.
People (AG) v McGrath (1960)
A good samaritan found an assault victim, who had been left on the side of the road unconscious. Good samaritan brought victim to hospital by car. Later medical review indicated the moving of the victim to the car and then the hospital by the good samaritan may have worsened the victim’s condition. Court of Appeal refused to quash the murder conviction, noting; “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.” It was foreseeable that someone may try and help the victim if they found them.
People (DPP) v Davis [2001] - KEY CASE
Woman dies after being violently assaulted by Davis. Give key case summary.
Dunne v DPP [2017] - KEY CASE
Man shot in arm and head, resulted in him living in a vegetative state for approximately two years. Man then died when family removed life support. Give key case summary.
DPP v Murphy [2005]
There was physical evidence that the victim had been abducted, raped, and murdered. In addition, accused said, “Just tell that girl’s parents I’m sorry for taking her life and what I did to her, I’m so, so sorry.” Even though the exact cause of her death could not be determined, causation could be inferred from the available evidence.
R v Blaue [1975]
Eggshell skull rule - you must take your victim as you find them. Victims have the right to determine their own medical care, even if their choices lead to a shorter lifespan.
Are the standards/definitions of causation set by common law or by statute?
Common law.
R v Harvey [2011]
Man throws remote at wife in a fit of rage. Hits her on the side of the neck and because of a rare medical condition (that neither was aware she had), she dies. Nature of crime considered on appeal and results in a slightly shorter prison sentence (21 mo instead of three years). Court opinion notes it as an “egg shell skull case.”
R v Roberts (1971)
Man giving a lift to a woman in his car tried to start groping her/removing her coat. She jumped from the moving car and sustained injuries as a result. On appeal, the court held that the defendant could be held responsible for the injuries caused by the victim’s actions if those actions were a natural consequence of the defendant’s behaviour. If the victim’s act was unforeseeable and unexpected, it might break the chain of causation.
R v Williams and Davis [1992]
Men attempted to rob hitchhiker they picked up in their car. Hitchhiker leapt from the car and subsequently died. On appeal, the court found the men not guilty of manslaughter, as the victim’s choice to jump from the car was not proportional to the threat he faced.
“A victim may in the agony of the moment do the wrong thing.”
