Causation in Homicide Flashcards
Church
Where the act which causes death occurs after the act accompanied by mens rea, the courts may treat the two acts as part of the same “course of conduct”
Facts: D hit V, thought had killed her, pushed her into a river where she drowned
A-G’s Reference (No 4 of 1980)
More than one act, can’t prove which one killed V, D can still be guilty if can prove he committed each act sufficient to produce MR, and had AR when committed the first of those acts
Wolmington v DPP
The golden rule that in criminal law the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
Poulton
Only once a baby has been delivered, live, from its mother can it be the victim of homicide
Page
Soldiers in non war situations are governed by ordinary law: British soldier here killed Egyptian civilian.
Actus Reus for murder and manslaughter
Sir Edward Cke: Man of sound memory and age of discretion Unlawfully killeth Within any country of the realm Any reasonable creature in being Under the queen's peace
3 key issues in causation
- Minimum causal contribution required of D
- The causal effect attributed to D’s omissions? (if any)
- Can D’s causal responsibility be relieved because of some supervening event?
White, Dalloway
‘But for’ test: Act must be causally linked to the result
W: poison in mothers drink but died from heart failure
D: lost control of horse, but child would have run under wheels anyway
Smith
Act of D need not be sole or main cause- but contribution must be operating and substantial
Benge
Possible to prosecute more than one person for the same death
Hennigan
substantial contribution to death= more than de minimis
Dyson
Where V has a pre-existing, life threatening condition, must ask whether D’s act accelerated the death
The Doctrine of Double Effect
Purpose of medication is to treat the pain, but the acceleration of death is a side effect, will not be sufficient causation for murder
Draft Criminal code: threshold for causal contribution by D
17(1)(a) More than a negligible contribution
Pittwood
A contract can create a duty of care
Draft Criminal code: When can causal effect be attributed to D’s omissions?
17(1)(b) D omits to do an act that might prevent its occurrence and is under a duty to do so
Gibbons and Proctor
G’s new wife, P, deprived V (child) of food, starved to death while G did not intervene
Both guilty of murder
G: familial relationship
P: Duty created when she assumed the role of mother
Stone and Dobinson
S elderly man, D his younger mistress
S’ younger sister moved in, anorexic, eventually died
Both guilty of manslaughter:
S: Family relationship, provided her with a place to live
D: Duty constructed by the fact she attempted to care for victim, but then gave up without seeking any outside help
Adomako
There is a general duty of care of looking after the patient, therefore there isn’t really a distinction between acts acts and omissions in liability
Airedale NHS v Bland
Victim of hillsborough disaster in vegetative state.
Held that it is lawful to withhold treatment where further treatment would be pointless, even where this would result in death
Miller
Man sleeping on mattress with lit cigarette in hand, started small fire, man noticed and moved to another room, fire eventually spread and was fatal
HL constructed a duty to take measures that lie within ones power to counteract a danger one has created oneself
Justification compared to noticing a danger created by another: fault lies with D in the first place
Draft Criminal Code: Conditions to be met by supervening causes
Art 17(2)
- Immediate and sufficient cause of the result
- Not foreseen by D
- Could not have reasonably been foreseen
Cheshire
D shot V, V’s breathing tube in the ICU became infected and he died- if infection had been spotted he could have been treated.
Held that while the infection was the most immediate cause of death, it does not relegate D’s contribution
To do this new cause muse be so independent and potent that it drives D’s cause in to history
Jordan
D stabbed V, V was almost well then was given anti-biotic to which it was know he was intolerant and he died.
Was held that this was independent enough to create a new novus actus
Holland
Refusal of medical treatment: D must take his victim as he finds him
D was guilty of V’s death where he injured V’s hand, V refused amputation of finger and died of infection
Dear
V’s wounds had begun to heal, but were reopened by an unknown party and V died
Held D would still be guilty as V had died from the wounds inflicted by D
Blaue
Jehovas Witness refused blood transfusion after being stabbed by D and died.
Held that the would inflicted by D was the immediate cause of death.
As a matter of policy could not make a judgement on whether beliefs were reasonable
Williams
Injury whilst escaping:
Was the response of V within the rage of responses that might be expected?
Features to be taken into account in favour of V:
V’s characteristics
Impairment of judgement in the agony of the moment
Kennedy (No 2)
D supplied V with drug, prepared syringe, handed it to them. V injected drug themselves and died
Held D did not cause the death of V:
If V acts voluntarily as a fully informed and responsible adult, this will break the chain of causation
Dhaliwal
If infliction of injury causes a recognised mental illness, and as a result of this someone killed them self, this could be manslaughter.
Justification: Not really the choice of the victim
Pagett
D opened fire on police officer who came to arrest him, was holding V as a shield but officer could not see this
They returned fire, hit V and she died
Held that the cause of the police’s act was D’s original act, and the reaction of the police was not free, deliberate and informed
Therefore the action by the police did not break the chain of causation between D and the death of V
Gnango
D and 3P had shoot out, 3P missed and killed V. 3P could not be found, so D was convicted of murder of V as a secondary party, even though he was the intended victim, and 3P shot first.
Policy reason- wanted to construct this situation so that both parties would be breaking the law as a future deterrent.
Omissions: Specific duties may arise in relation to…
- statutory offences
- Contract
- Relationship
- Medical Treatment
- Creation of a dangerous situation
Ommissions: Conventional View
Williams
Societies task is there repression of active wrongdoing, not bringing the behaviour of the ignorant up to scratch
Omissions: Social Responsibility View
Ashworth
Why is it so difficult to construct a law that takes account of problems identified of putting too great a burden on the person who has a duty to rescue? (such as has happened in France)
