Causation and Omissions Flashcards
Result crime:
Ones in which the actus reus is defined in terms of prohibited consequences.
Conduct crimes:
Ones in which the Actus reus is concerned with prohibited behaviour, regardless of its consequences.
Causation, two-stage test:
- Factual causation;
2. Legal causation.
Factual causation, case and principle:
R v White [1910]
Defendant wanted to kill his mother. Poisoned her drink but died of natural causes before poison took effect.
Factual causation established by ‘but for’ test.
Acts as a preliminary filter that eliminates all unconnected acts/events, leaving a range of potential legal causes.
Legal causation, case:
- Harm must be from a culpable act (Dalloway);
- Defendant’s action need not be the sole cause of the resulting harm, but it must be more than minimal (Benge). R v Pagett: “Defendant’s act need not be the sole cause, or even main cause, provided it is a cause that ‘contributed significantly to that result’” (per Lord Goff). ;
- There must be no novus actus interveniens.
R v Cheshire vs. R v Jordan
R v Cheshire - defendant shot victim, suffered complications during tracheotomy, hospital failed to recognise this. Original injuries no longer life-threatening and victim would not have died had he received appropriate care. Tracheotomy flowed from original shooting, liable. Misdiagnosis and routine errors inevitable.
R v Jordan - stabbed victim. Wound healed but died following allergic reaction to drugs administered. Defendant not liable as original wound healed and medical treatment was ‘palpably wrong’ thus breaking the link between the defendant’s act and the victim’s death.
Intervening acts, only break chain of causation if:
- An overwhelming cause of death;
- An unforeseeable occurrence.
A) Acts of victim; b) acts of third parties, c) medical intervention.
Intervening acts, acts of the victim:
R v Roberts:
Defendant interfered with victim’s clothing whilst she was a passenger in his car. Jumped out and sustained serious injuries. Conviction upheld as foreseeable that the victim would try to escape and could be injured.
Chain of causation only broken if the victim’s actions were ‘so daft’ as to be unforeseeable.
Intervening acts, thin-skull rule:
Only extreme acts of victim breaks the chain.
Blaue [1975], defendant stabbed the victim, puncturing her lung. She refused a blood transfusion due to religion and died. Defendant convicted of manslaughter, even though victim refused life-saving treatment. Thin-skull not limited to physical conditions but included an individual’s psychological make-up and beliefs.
Omissions, general rule:
There is no liability in criminal law for omissions. Unless: 1. Contract; 2. Special relationships; 3. Voluntary assumption of care.
Omissions, fails to do something contractually bound to do so:
R v Pittwood:
Defendant contracted to open and close level-crossing gates. Failed to close, victim killed by train.
Person under contract will be liable for harmful consequences of his failure to perform contractual obligations.
Omissions, special relationships:
Gibbins v Proctor:
The first defendant failed to provide food for his child who starved to death. His liability was based upon his omission to fulfil the duty established by special relationship of father/child.
Omissions, voluntary assumption of care:
Gibbins v Proctor:
The second defendant was the partner of the child’s father. She was also liable for her omission to provide food, but liability was based not on nature of relationship but because she had previously fed the child but had ceased to do so. A person cannot cast off the duty to act that the the voluntary assumption of care imposes.
Intervening acts, acts of third parties:
An act of a third party will generally break the chain of causation unless it was foreseeable, as was the case in r v Pagett.
