Causation

Question 1

What is recognised as factual causation?

Answer 1

If ‘but for’ the defendant’s act, the result would not have occurred.

Question 2

What is legal causation?

Answer 2

• From factual causes the law shall establish the legal cause
• Legal causation is a ‘substantial and operating cause’ of the harm

Question 3

What happened in the case of R v Cheshire 1991? (Tracheotomy)

Answer 3

DEFENDANT’S ACTION CONTRIBUTED TO THE END RESULT SIGNIFICANTLY

Facts:
- Defendant shot victim in the leg and stomach
- Victim developed respiratory problems during surgery and a tracheotomy tube was placed in his wind pipe
- two months after the shooting the victim passed away for cardio respiratory arrest from the tracheotomy
- Consultant surgeon testified for the defence that the wounds suffered by this point would not have been the direct cause of the victim dying it would have been the negligent treatment
- Judge directed the jury that the defendant was the cause of the victims death unless they established that the actions of the medical staff were so reckless in their treatment
- He was convicted
APPEAL
- Appeal dismissed
- Jury was not tasked with evaluating competing causes of death or choosing dominant cause
- All the jury had to decide was whether they were satisfied that the accused’s acts could be fairly be said to have made a significant contribution to the victim’s death
- Negligent medical treatment was determined as being no so independent from the defender’s act.

Question 4

What may cause a novus actus interveniens?

Answer 4

• Acts of God
• Acts by third parties
• Acts of victim

Question 5

When will an act of a third party cause a novus actus interveniens?

Answer 5

• If the act is free voluntary and informed

- Medical treatment

Question 6

What happened in the case of R v Kennedy 2007? (Drug Dealer)

Answer 6

• Bosque (victim) requested heroin from Kennedy (defendant)
• He provided the drug and syringe to the victim and proceeded to leave afterwards
• The victim died sometime after consumption of the drug
• Defendant charged with manslaughter and supply of a class a drug
  HELD ON APPEAL
• Conviction of manslaughter quashed
• The appellant did not administer the drug to the victim
• the victim done so of his own free will
• The Lords recognised this as an informed choice by the victim and thus constituted a novus actus interveniens

Question 7

What happened in the case of R v Pagett? (Human shield)

Answer 7

Act must be “free, voluntary and informed”

• In this case the defendant had kidnapped his girlfriend
• He used her as a shield when running from police
• the police attempted to shoot the defendant but killed the victim

HELD

• this was not a novus actus interveniens as the act was not “free, voluntary and informed”
• the defendant’s actions were the cause of the victim’s death
• The police had not caused a break in the chain by acting lawfully in their duties.

Question 8

EXAMPLE

• Clyde pushes Mary into bushes
• the bushes are ivy and injure mary

Would Mary’s ‘act’ of falling in to the bush be a voluntary one or not?
Who would be held responsible for her injuries?

Answer 8

• No Mary’s act would not be voluntary

- Clyde would be responsible for causing her injury

Question 9

If a person is acting in a way which justifies their action will it be deemed to be “free, voluntary and informed”?

Answer 9

NO

- The action will not be “free, voluntary and informed”.

Question 10

EXAMPLE

• A passer by notices an injured person
• They attempt first aid
• They do so in such a way that the victim dies

Is this a novus actus interveniens?

Answer 10

Potentially not

• the passer by was acting with a moral obligation
• they therefore may be found not to break the chain of causation

Question 11

EXAMPLE

• Gordon posts a parcel bomb intended for Jack
• The parcel is delivered to Jack by Bradley a postal worker
• The bomb goes off killing Jack

Who will be deemed to have causes the injury?

Answer 11

• Gordon would be deemed to have caused the injury

- Although Bradley was free and voluntary he was not informed

Question 12

To amount to a novus actus interventions what must the act of a third party do?

Answer 12

• Render the original defendant’s act no longer a substantial and operating cause

Question 13

What happened in the case of R v Jordan 1956? (Wound almost healed)

Answer 13

• A defendant stabbed a victim
  -The victim was taken to hospital and is wound had almost healed
• the doctor administered a drug that the victim was intolerant to an the victim as a result died
  HELD
• the court held that the medical treatment in this case had killed the victim and not the defendant
• reasons were that the wound had almost healed at time of death, in medical terms the wound has not contributed to the death
• the treatment provided by the hospital was “abnormal”, “palpably wrong” or “grossly negligent”.
• should have been known by the doctor that the victim was intolerant to the drug

Question 14

Can omissions by a third party break the chain of causation?

Answer 14

NO

• although not explicitly stated by the court
• accepted that an omission cannot render the defendant’s act no longer an operating or substantial cause of victims death?

Question 15

EXAMPLE

• Defendant stabbed victim
• Upon arriving at hospital the victim does not receive instant treatment
• The victim dies

Was there a break in the chain of causation?
Who will be responsible for the death?

Answer 15

• No break in the chain, omissions (failure to be treated) by third parties cannot break chain of causation
• The defendant will be responsible as the omission does not render the defendant’s act no longer an operating or substantial cause of victims death.

Question 16

What happened in the case of R v Blaue 1975? (Refusal of medical treatment)

Answer 16

• Blaue stabbed Jacolyn Woodhead piercing her lung
• She was taken to hospital and told she needed a blood transfusion
• She refused as these were contrary to her belief as a jehovas witness
• She was made aware by doctors that she would die without a transfusion
• She stuck by refusal and died the next day
• The appellant was convicted of manslaughter
• On appeal the appellant argued that the victim’s refusal of a blood transfusion broke the chain of causation between the stabbing and the death.
  HELD
• Appeal dismissed
• Despite arguments from the defence that if it was put to the jury she may have a blood transfusion they might have found it unreasonable in refusing
• The judge refused this point of argument
• Judge stated that was caused the death was the stab wound and the not stopping this from happening did not break the chain between the stabbing and the death

Question 17

What is the ‘thin skull rule’?

Answer 17

The principle that you must take your victim as you find them

Question 18

When may an act of god break the chain of causation?

Answer 18

• If the event which occurs is so extraordinary e.g. a man assaults a victim who is knocked unconscious, the victim is then struck by lightening
• Most of the time an act of god will not break the chain of causation

Question 19

How was the think skull rule explained an established in R v Blaue 1975?

Answer 19

• the thin skull rule is classically defined as taking your victim as you find them
• this case furthered the principle that it applies to ‘the whole person’
• this being in reference to the fact that the defendant stabbed the victim not knowing she was a jehovas witness
• the defendant therefore argued that the victim broke the chain when refusing treatment which was contrary to her belief
• the judge dismissed the defendants plea on the grounds that you must take the whole victim as you find them.

Question 20

What happened in R v Smith 1959? (Court martial)

Answer 20

• Appellant appealed against conviction of murder by a court martial
• the appellant had stabbed the victim
• the victim had been dropped twice while being taken to the medical reception station
• he was subsequently given treatment that was harmful and incorrect
  HELD
• Lord Parker CJ rejected the contention that his death did not result from the stab wound.
• He described the wound at the time of death as still being an operating and substantial cause.
• Only if the second cause is so overwhelming to make the first cause a mere fact in history can it be accepted in breaking the chain

Question 21

What happened in the case of DPP V Daley 1980? (Throwing stones)

Answer 21

• Defendants were chasing victim throwing stones at him
• in attempting to escape the victim tipped and fell and was subsequently found to be dead
• defendants charged with murder and convicted of constructive manslaughter
• Lord Keith summarised what in the Lordships’ view the prosecution had to establish in such a case’

1) that the victim immediately before he sustained his injuries was in fear of being physically hurt
2) that his fear was such that it caused him to try and escape
3) that whilst he was trying to escape and because he was trying to escape, he met his death
4) that his fear of being hurt there and then was reasonable and was caused by conduct of the defendant
5) the the defendant’s conduct which caused fear was unlawful
6) the defendant’s conduct was such as any sober and reasonable person would recognise as likely to subject the victim to at least the risk of some harm resulting from it, albeit not serious harm

Question 22

What happened in R v Pitts 1842? (River Jump)

Answer 22

• A victim jumped in to a river attmepting to escape an argument with the defendant
  The victim was subsequently found to have drowned
  HELD
• judge found that a man may throw himself in to a river under such circumstances as to not render it a voluntary act BUT must have apprehension of immediate violence
• there must be no other means of escape as was such a step a reasonable man might take
• Under those circumstances a defendant may be liable for victims death
• in this case the defendant was acquitted.