Causation in Homicide

Question 0

Church

Answer 0

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

Question 1

A-G’s Reference (No 4 of 1980)

Answer 1

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

Question 2

Wolmington v DPP

Answer 2

The golden rule that in criminal law the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt

Question 3

Poulton

Answer 3

Only once a baby has been delivered, live, from its mother can it be the victim of homicide

Question 4

Page

Answer 4

Soldiers in non war situations are governed by ordinary law: British soldier here killed Egyptian civilian.

Question 5

Actus Reus for murder and manslaughter

Answer 5

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

Question 6

3 key issues in causation

Answer 6

1. Minimum causal contribution required of D
2. The causal effect attributed to D’s omissions? (if any)
3. Can D’s causal responsibility be relieved because of some supervening event?

Question 7

White, Dalloway

Answer 7

‘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

Question 8

Smith

Answer 8

Act of D need not be sole or main cause- but contribution must be operating and substantial

Question 9

Benge

Answer 9

Possible to prosecute more than one person for the same death

Question 10

Hennigan

Answer 10

substantial contribution to death= more than de minimis

Question 11

Dyson

Answer 11

Where V has a pre-existing, life threatening condition, must ask whether D’s act accelerated the death

Question 12

The Doctrine of Double Effect

Answer 12

Purpose of medication is to treat the pain, but the acceleration of death is a side effect, will not be sufficient causation for murder

Question 13

Draft Criminal code: threshold for causal contribution by D

Answer 13

17(1)(a) More than a negligible contribution

Question 14

Pittwood

Answer 14

A contract can create a duty of care

Question 15

Draft Criminal code: When can causal effect be attributed to D’s omissions?

Answer 15

17(1)(b) D omits to do an act that might prevent its occurrence and is under a duty to do so

Question 16

Gibbons and Proctor

Answer 16

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

Question 17

Stone and Dobinson

Answer 17

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

Question 18

Adomako

Answer 18

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

Question 19

Airedale NHS v Bland

Answer 19

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

Question 20

Miller

Answer 20

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

Question 21

Draft Criminal Code: Conditions to be met by supervening causes

Answer 21

Art 17(2)

1. Immediate and sufficient cause of the result
2. Not foreseen by D
3. Could not have reasonably been foreseen

Question 22

Cheshire

Answer 22

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

Question 23

Jordan

Answer 23

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

Question 24

Holland

Answer 24

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

Question 25

Dear

Answer 25

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

Question 26

Blaue

Answer 26

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

Question 27

Williams

Answer 27

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

Question 28

Kennedy (No 2)

Answer 28

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

Question 29

Dhaliwal

Answer 29

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

Question 30

Pagett

Answer 30

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

Question 31

Gnango

Answer 31

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.

Question 32

Omissions: Specific duties may arise in relation to...

Answer 32

1. statutory offences 2. Contract 3. Relationship 4. Medical Treatment 3. Creation of a dangerous situation

Question 33

Ommissions: Conventional View

Answer 33

Williams Societies task is there repression of active wrongdoing, not bringing the behaviour of the ignorant up to scratch

Question 34

Omissions: Social Responsibility View

Answer 34

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)