Causation and Intervening Acts Flashcards
Q: What is the causal link or chain of causation?
Must show a causal link between the AR and the relevant consequences.
In other words, must prove that the consequences would not have happened ‘but for’ D’s act or omission.
Q: When is there considered to be a break in the chain of causation?
A causal link can be broken by a new intervening act, provided that the ‘new’ act is ‘free, deliberate, and informed’ (Latif 1996)
Q: What happens to the chain of causation if D’s behaviour aggravates existing circumstances?
D’s act does not have to be the sole or the main cause of the result! It must make a contribution to the result, which is more than negligible. D’s act should be a substantial and operative cause of the result.
McKechnie 1992- D attacked V, who was already suffering from a serious ulcer, causing him brain damage. The brain damage (caused by the assault) prevented doctors from operating on the ulcer which eventually ruptured, killing V. COA, upholding the conviction for manslaughter, held D’s criminal conduct (the assault) had made a significant contribution to V’s death even though the untreated ulcer was the actual cause of death.
Q: What happens if there is a significant delay between the act and consequence?
Bryce 2004- D transported an accomplice to a place near the V’s house some 13 hours before the accomplice shot and killed V. Despite the delay and the fact the accomplice had not fully made up his mind about the proposed shooting at the time he was dropped off, there was no intervening event that diverted or hindered the planned murder
Q: Are drug dealers liable for the death of their victims? Cases
General rule: No… only if the dealer played a greater part in administering the drugs to V such as by injecting V will the law attach any liability to the dealer for V’s death.
Kennedy 2007- drug dealer supplied drugs to another who then kills himself by taking an overdose, dealer cannot be said to have caused the death. Death would have been brought about by the deliberate exercise of free will by the user.
Q: Are drug dealers liable for the death of their victims? Cases
Dias 2001- supplier is unlikely to be held liable for causing death in such a case unless he/she actually takes a more active part in the administering of the drug. D helped V put a tourniquet on their arm for administering the drugs
Q: Are drug dealers liable for the death of their victims?
Field 2021- D tricked V into drinking large quantity of whisky which in conjunction with the drugs D had previously given him, caused, or substantially contributed to his death. COA upheld trial judge’s direction that if D had intent to kill and have V the drink, even if V agreed to it, it would be open to conclude that the giving caused the death, unless V’s decision was informed, and he knew it would cause death.
Q: What if medical treatment intervenes with the chain of causation and causes the death of V?
Incorrect medical treatment is hardly ever categorised by the courts as amounting to an intervening act, even if it is negligent and causes the death of V. It does not break the chain of causation and alter D’s liability, especially if the treatment given is standard and routine.
Q: What if medical treatment intervenes with the chain of causation and causes the death of V? Case?
Smith 1959- 2 soldiers were fighting when one was stabbed, he was carried to a medical centre (dropped twice). Overworked doctor failed to notice the injured man’s lung was pierced and the treatment the soldier received ‘might well have affected his chances of recovery’. This did not, however, break the chain of causation as the original injury was still the operating and substantial cause of death.
Q: What if medical treatment intervenes with the chain of causation and causes the death of V? Case?
Jordan 1956- D stabbed the deceased, who was taken to hospital for medical treatment. Deceased received treatment for the injuries and recovered so that the original injury had almost healed. There was a mix-up resulting in the administration of a drug the deceased was intolerant to- this treatment was described by the court as ‘palpably wrong’ and the death was not caused by D but by the extremely negligent treatment.
Q: What is the rule where D ‘must take their victim as they find them?’
This means that if V has a particular characteristic which makes the consequences of an act against them more acute, that is D’s bad luck.
Q: What is the rule where D ‘must take their victim as they find them?’ Cases?
Harvey 2010- during a ‘domestic tiff’, the offender threw a TV remote control at his wife, which hit her behind the ear. Unknown to anyone, she had an unusual weakness of the vertebral artery, which ruptured and caused her death. Save for the death, the offence charged would have been one of battery.
Blaue 1975- assault victim died after refusing a blood transfusion on religious grounds. Chain of causation was not broken; D was charged with murder.
Q: When does a victim’s own actions break the chain of causation?
Where the actions of V are unreasonable, could not realistically be anticipated or is ‘plain daft’
Roberts 1971- V was injured whilst jumping from her assailant’s car in an attempt to escape. V’s actions will not necessarily be regarded as introducing a new intervening act if V’s actions could be anticipated and are reasonable in the situation.
Q: Does an ‘act of God’ break the chain of causation?
Act of God or exceptional natural event may break the chain leading from D’s initial act if it was the sole immediate cause of the consequences in question. Routine hazards such as seasonal rain would not have such an effect.
