Challenges to Establishing a Crime - Causation Flashcards
Factual causation?
Whether D’s conduct contributed to the death (but-for test).
Even if V’s death would have occurred despite D’s actions, V would not have died on that particular occasion but for D’s conduct.
Legal causation?
Whether connection was sufficiently strong to justify imposing criminal responsibility (substantial cause test and the foreseeability test).
Legal Causation:
R v Smith [1959] 2 QB 35
D stabbed V who was then rushed to the hospital. On the way, V was dropped twice and at the hospital, he was given improper treatment which could have affected his chances of recovery.
Held: Imputable causation to be determined by whether the original wound inflicted by D on V was “still an operating cause and a substantial cause” of V’s death.
Can only escape liability if second cause was so overwhelming as to make the original action merely part of the history.
Legal Causation:
Ng Keng Yong v PP [2004] 4 SLR(R) 89
As’ negligence was a substantial cause of the collision.
Yong CJ: Proper test was for the court to determine whether D’s negligence had continued to contribute substantially to the result, or whether the 3rd party’s contributory negligence has such causative potency as to negate the former finding.
Causation test is a general principle and should apply to non-fatal offences and other result crimes.
Note that test for imputable causation for s304A PC is the same as that for murder [Shaiful Edham bin Adam].
Foreseeability Test?
In acting the way he did, did D actually foresee or could he have reasonably foreseen V’s death as a likely consequence of such conduct? [ref Nga Moe, reasonableness and foreseeability accepted as defences]
A. Subjective: Where D has specialised knowledge enabling him to foresee a result.
B. Prospective in nature: Looking forward from D’s position at the time, considering the mental processes linking the D’s conduct.
C. Reasonableness (Objective): Foreseeability of harm not to be considered in isolation but in the context of all circumstances which an ordinary person would have taken into account.
Foreseeability Test:
R v Maybin [2012] SCC 24
Reasonable foreseeability test is just an analytical tool and ultimately, the first principle is still the fact that the dangerous and unlawful acts of D must be a significant contributing cause of V’s death.
Guay Seng Jiong Nickson v PP [2016] 3 SLR 1079
Underlying inquiry is always whether there is a sufficient nexus between the negligent conduct and the damage to justify the attribution of responsibility to D.
If the nexus insufficient, liability will not attach to the negligent actor in respect of that damage.
Actions of 3rd parties or V may serve to so weaken the nexus between D’s conduct and the eventual damage that he cannot be said to be a legal cause of the damage even if, on a scientific and objective analysis, his act was a factual cause of the damage.
Intervening Causes:
Singapore tests?
Substantial cause test.
However, foreseeability test has not been rejected.
Intervening Causes:
Where V contributed to own death
V ignorant of danger created by D - PP v Suryanarayana Murthy (IN)
D gave N food that was poisoned, N did not like the taste and threw it away, but was eaten by V who died.
A. Substantial cause test: May be able to ascertain that poisoned food significantly contributes to the poisoning, but fails to articulate the reason how N’s conduct of throwing the food away may be substantial enough to overwhelm the causal contribution of D.
B. Foreseeability test: Provides ready explanation by noting that D could not have reasonably foreseen that V might find the food (sharper capacity).
Intervening Causes:
Where V contributed to own death
V knew of danger created by D but caused own death under pressure from D - R v Roberts
V died as a result of taking steps to avoid a vicious attack by D.
Test is whether the injury was a natural result of what the alleged assailant said and did in that it was something that could reasonably have been foreseen as the consequence of what he was saying or doing.
Intervening Causes:
Where V contributed to own death
V’s voluntary contribution to own death does NOT break causation - R v Blaue [1975] 3 All ER 446
Use substantial cause test (must take their victims as they find them).
Intervening Causes:
Where V contributed to own death
Thin skull rule
D takes V as he finds him so that it is immaterial whether D could have reasonably foreseen the antecedent condition of V.
S 299, Expl 1: Take your V as they are.
Intervening Causes:
Where 3rd party or event contributed to V’s death
To determine whether D’s negligence had continued to contribute substantially to the result, or whether 3rd party’s contributory negligence had such causative potency as to negate that finding.
Intervening Causes:
Where medical treatment contributes to V’s death - Proper Treatment
D will be causally responsible for V’s death even when the injury inflicted was non-fatal.
Receipt of medical treatment is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the wound.
Intervening Causes:
Where medical treatment contributes to V’s death - Improper Treatment
Gross nature of medical negligence would render it abnormal or unreasonably foreseeable on D’s part thereby absolving him from causal responsibility.
[R v Jordan: Not liable bc medical negligence in administering antibiotic V intolerant to - wounds to intestine were mostly healed at time of death.]
D may be liable if threshold is crossed.
