Causation

Question 1

What must causation prove?

Answer 1

That the act has caused the consequence.

Question 2

When is the defendant responsible for a crime?

Answer 2

When his acts are both a factual and legal cause of the victims death.

Question 3

Is causation laid down in statute?

Answer 3

No.

Question 4

Who must prove legal and factual causation?

Answer 4

The prosecution.

Question 5

What is factual causation?

Answer 5

The prosecution must ask would the victim have died ‘but for’ the defendants conduct? The defendant is not liable if the victim would have died anyway. This is known as the ‘but for test’.

Question 6

White 1910?

Answer 6

A son poisoned his mother by adding cyanide to her drink. However, before the cyanide could take effect she died of a heart attack. The court asked would the victim have died ‘but for’ the defendants actions? The answer here was yes. The defendant was found guilty of attempted murder as he had not caused her death.

Question 7

What is legal causation?

Answer 7

This is closely related with moral responsibility, the defendants act must be more than a minimal cause of death. It asks if the defendant is morally to blame.

Question 8

Marchant and Muntz 2004?

Answer 8

A motorcyclist impaled himself on the grab attached to a loading vehicle, which should have been covered, after driving at 80mph. It was held that the driver and farmer were not morally responsible, even if the grab was concealed by a guard the driver would have still died due to his speed.

Question 9

What must the defendant’s actions be to hold them responsible?

Answer 9

Operative and substantial.

Question 10

What are the two general rules on causation?

Answer 10

• the thin skull rule: the defendant must take his victim as he finds him
• Novus actus interveniens: an intervening act may break the chain of causation, this can happen in several ways

Question 11

Hayward 1908?

Answer 11

The defendant chased his wife into the street and kicked her. Surprisingly she died from this injury, she was discovered to have been suffering from a persistent thyrus gland condition which meant she could die from experiencing strong emotion. The defendant was found guilty of causing death.

Question 12

Blaue 1975?

Answer 12

The defendant attacked an 18 year old girl with a knife causing a serious stab wound which pierced her lung. She was told she needed a blood transfusion, the girl refused as she was a Jehovah Witness and died. The court held that she would not have died ‘but for’ the defendants stab wound and the defendant was found guilty of causing her death.

Question 13

What are the four ways under the novus actus interveniens rule?

Answer 13

• an intervening act of a third party: does medical negligence break the chain of causation?
• actions of the victim: what happens if during the ‘incident’ the victim does something so he is injured or even dies, is the chain of causation broken?
• victim self-neglect: if the victim neglects his own injuries the chain of causation will not be broken.
• using a victim as a shield

Question 14

What are the cases for ‘an intervening act of a third party: does medical negligence break the chain of causation?’?

Answer 14

• Jordan 1956
• Cheshire 1991
• Mellor 1996
• Smith 1959

Question 15

Jordan 1956?

Answer 15

The wound for which the victim had been admitted to hospital for had almost healed. The hospital then administered incorrect medical treatment and the victim died. The court declared the treatment to be ‘palpably wrong’ and the intervening act was held to have broken the chain of causation and the defendants conviction was quashed.

Question 16

What must medical treatment be to break the chain of causation?

Answer 16

Palpably wrong.

Question 17

Cheshire 1991?

Answer 17

The defendant and the victim got into an argument in a fish and chip shop. The defendant shot the victim in the stomach and the doctors performed a tracheotomy, the windpipe was so narrow that the victim died 2 months later. The defendant argues that the negligence of the hospital broke the chain of causation. However, the court held that the original wound was still the operative and substantial cause of death and the defendant’s murder conviction was upheld. This case emphasises the fact that only extraordinary cases will break the chain of causation, this is because the courts are reluctant to absolve the defendant from responsibility.

Question 18

Mellor 1996?

Answer 18

Mellor attacked a 71 year old man. He was taken to hospital with chest pain and facial bruising and he died 2 days later. The defendant argued it was the victims pneumonia that resulted in death due to the lack of oxygen. The court of appeal upheld Mellors conviction for manslaughter.

Question 19

Smith 1959?

Answer 19

A fight broke out between the defendant and the victim in an army barracks, where the victim was stabbed several times. A fellow solider attempted to carry the victim to the medical wing where he dropped him a number of times. He also received very poor treatment and died. The court held the wound to be the operative and substantial cause of death and the defendants appeal was dismissed.

Question 20

Will turning off a life support machine break the chain of causation?

Answer 20

No.

Question 21

What are the cases for ‘actions of the victim: what happens if during the ‘incident’ the victim does something so he is injured or even dies, is the chain of causation broken?’?

Answer 21

• Roberts 1972
• Marjoram 1999
• Williams and David 1992

Question 22

Roberts 1972?

Answer 22

The defendant gave the victim a lift and made a sexual advance to her and she jumped out of the car and injured herself. It was held that his actions were the operative and substantial cause of her injuries, the courts introduced the daftness test, has the victim done something so daft or unexpected that no reasonable person could be expected to foresee it? The courts held that it was reasonably foreseeable that they girl may jump out of the car and his conviction for ABH was upheld.

Question 23

Marjoram 1999?

Answer 23

Marjoram with a gang of youths kicked down the hostel door of the victim and caused the victim to jump out of the window. It was held that a reasonable person could foresee such a reaction and the defendant’s GBH conviction was upheld.

Question 24

Williams and David 1992?

Answer 24

The defendant gave a lift to a hitchhiker and then tried to rob him. The hitchhiker jumped out of the car and died of head injuries. The court held that the act of escaping was not proportional to the threats and there was held to be a break in the chain of causation. However, they rules as long as the victims response was within a range of foreseeable possibilities a defendant could still be liable. The court of appeal however, quashed their conviction because of the lack of direction by the trial judge.

Question 25

What are the cases for ‘victim self-neglect: if the victim neglects his own injuries the chain of causation will not be broken.’?

Answer 25

• Holland 1841

- Dear 1996

Question 26

Holland 1841?

Answer 26

The defendant cut the victims finger with an iron instrument, the wound became infected and the victim ignored medical advice to have his finger amputated. The wound caused lockjaw resulting in the victims death. The court held that the chain of causation was not broken as the wound that was inflicted by the defendant caused death.

Question 27

Dear 1996?

Answer 27

The defendant slashed the victim with a Stanley knife, severing an artery. For reasons that were unclear the victim removed his stitches after treatment. The defendant was convicted of murder. The defendant appealed that the victim committed suicide by reopening the wound or failing to get treatment. The court of appeal dismissed the appeal, the injuries were the operative and substantial cause of death.

Question 28

What are the cases for ‘using the victim as a shield’?

Answer 28

• Pagett 1983

Question 29

Pagett 1983?

Answer 29

The police shot at the defendant whilst trying to arrest Pagett. He grabbed a pregnant girl and used her as a shield. The police shot and the girl died. It was held that Pagett had caused the injuries as the polices reaction was a reasonable response to Pagett’s actions.

Question 30

Evaluation of causation?

Answer 30

• Clarkson and Keating argue that causation has developed on a case by case basis. A coherent approach is lacking and it is not governed by underlying principles, whether or not causation is established is no more than a ‘moral reaction’.
• This idea contrast starkly with Dias 2001 where a defendant supplied drugs to the victim who self-injected and died from an overdose. It was held that self-injection amounted to break the chain of causation. The courts were willing to absolve the defendant from responsibility.
• The decision in Blaue 1975 can be criticised for its harshness, especially where the principle is extended to religious beliefs.
• Causation is shaped by public policy and too often the decision of the courts reflects the need to protect institutions such as hospitals and the police. In the case of Pagett, the morally reasonable actions of the police were held to be no more than an intervening act and Pagett was deemed liable for the death of the girl. This is a staggering judgement, especially as in a subsequent civil case, the courts declared the police to be negligent and ordered damages to be paid to the victims parents.
• Cheshire and Smith expose judicial reluctance to absolve the defendant from liability where the victims have received negligent hospital treatment. The courts have made their policy clear. It is only in the most extraordinary and unusual case that medical negligence will break the chain of causation. Hospital resources are limited and assailants should not escape liability just because the victim did not receive the best treatment.