Week 2- Causing death and murder Flashcards
What is Sine Qua non/ substantial cause?
- A way of assessing causation, to decide whether someone was an operating and substantial cause at the time of death.
- There needs to be a chain of causation between Ds causation and Vs death to help establish the relevant guilt.
Hughes [2013] UKSC 56
(Sine qua non/ substantial cause) facts and significance?
Facts- V was under the influence of drugs and alcohol and was driving erratically on the wrong side of the road. Crashed into H who was driving without fault, despite being uninsured.
Significance- the defendant had to be shown to have done something or omitted to do something to be charged for his contribution to death to be more than minimal.
HUGHES NOT DEEMED TO BE THE SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE.
-It was a strict liability offence to cause death when driving uninsured, but it was not established by the courts that he caused the death, the state of affairs of his presence on the corner was not enough to establish the chain of causation.
Taylor 2016 UKSC 6 facts and significance??
facts- Taylor had taken a friends van without permission, and was over the legal alcohol limit, when a mans scooter had collided with the van and the driver was killed.
Significance- Taylor was charged with aggravated vehicle taking and causing death whilst uninsured.
-The causing death whilst uninsured charge was dropped because, following Hughes, the driver was not out fault with his driving, and therefore had not CAUSED the death, it was once again a state of affairs.
Williams 1992 facts and significance? (Flight and fright )
Facts–A hitchhiker was picked up by 3 people, and whilst driving he jumped out of the car going 30 MPH, sustaining head injuries and death due to the apparent threat of violence against him.
Significance- in first instance judge should’ve directed jury as to whether the reaction to jump out of the vehicle was reasonably foreseeable given the actions of the others in the vehicle. Chain of causation was broken
–there was a lack of evidence as to gravity of the threat, as in the apparent threats of asking for money or leaving did not constitute to a reasonable person jumping out of the car voluntarily and of free will
Jordan (1956) facts and significance?
intervening acts or events
Facts- V died from a stab wound from D. D charged with murder. Medical evidence showed the actual death was caused by administration of a drug with V was intolerant too and also too much liquid
Significance- -the medical intervention was deemed to constitute to ‘novus actus interveniens’, as had the medical treatment been ‘normal’ it’s unlikely that the victim would’ve died.
-had the jury had the evidence of the two medical experts in the first place they wouldn’t have been inclined to judge the defendant as guilty. His conviction for murder was quashed.
Hayward facts and significance??
flight and fright
Facts- D chased his wife, V, into the road, shouting at her and issuing threats of violence. A medical condition meant she reacted to the shock and died. D charged with manslaughter.
Significance- a pre-existing medical condition won’t break the chain of causation, D still liable for her death. Must take victim as found.
Smith 1959 facts and significance
Intervening acts or events
Facts- soldier stabbed in bayonet fight with another soldier, dropped on way to medical tent and given abnormal medical treatment.
D charged with murder and upheld.
Significance- the stab wound was still an operating and substantial cause of death at the time despite the dire medical treatment which was bad but not extraordinary so as to break the chain of causation.
Roberts (1972) (intervening acts and events)
Facts- girl jumped from car after being sexually assaulted by the driver, who made sexual threats and attempted to remove her coat
Significance- Assault occasioning ABH upheld because the actions of the girl were reasonably foreseeable, even if they weren’t foreseen by the driver
-She had not jumped under free, willing and voluntary conditions and therefore did not break chain of causation of driver.
Blaue 1975 (medical case) (intervening acts and events)
Facts- V was stabbed by D and refused life-saving treatment due to being jevovas witness.
Significance- D must take V as found, omitting to save their own life does not break the chain of causation. Stab wound was still operating and substantial cause of death.
Chesire 1991 (intervening acts or events)
Facts- D shot V in leg, V placed in intensive care and died after developing respiratory issues. D appealed that it was negligent medical treatment which was the cause of death
Significance- -in reality the negligent treatment doesn’t excuse the responsibility of the defendant unless the treatment was ‘so potent’ and ‘so independent of his acts’.
-in this case whilst the wound had partially healed it was still an operating cause and directly contributed to the requirement for medical care in the first place.
Kennedy (No 2) 2008
Facts- A prepared a syringe of heroin and handed it to B, who self-administered the drug and died. A was convicted of manslaughter and supplying class A drugs, but appealed to the AC.
Significance- -A was acquitted of manslaughter because whilst he supplied the drugs to B he could not be guilty of
unlawfully administering a drug contrary to section 23 of the 1861 Act as it was not him who actually administered the drug. B had made a voluntary and informed decision to self-administer
-Adults of sound mind are presumed to hold personal autonomy and undertaking a free, deliberate and informed decision could warrant no liability for anyone else in this situation
Wallace facts and significance (acid and euthanasia)
Facts- D had thrown acid onto V, causing life changing injuries. V flew to Belgium to undertake euthanasia, initially court held that D was no liable for murder as V had undertaken travel as an adult of sound mind, with a free and informed decision
Significance- murder charge was reinstated on the grounds that Ds actions are a significant cause of death and were not unconnected.
- Belgian doctors were acting lawfully and didn’t break chain of causation
- It was not a free and willing decision on behalf of V as D has put them in the situation where that became the only viable option for V
Pagett 1983 (policeman as innocent third party)
Facts- D was acquitted of murder but charged for manslaughter after firing at police, whilst using a pregnant girl as a body shield. The police shot back in self-defence and the girl was killed
Significance–the action of an innocent third party (the police firing back in self-defence) did not constitute to a Novus actus interveniens, and therefor did not break the chain of causation for the defendant even if he did not physically shoot the girl himself.
–even if he wasn’t the sole or main reason for her death he was still guilty of manslaughter and his assaults qualified as the actus reus for this
Cunningham 1982 (Murder and GBH case)
Facts- A man intended to cause grievous bodily harm through smashing someone repeatedly on the head with a chair, the man died as a result of the fractures to his skull.
Significance-Held, that the malice aforethought requisite in a conviction of murder could be implied where the accused intended by a voluntary act to cause grievous bodily harm to the victim who died as the result.
-intention was therefore found to fulfil the mens rea of murder through the intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
Murder could be achieved as a constructive crime.
Hancock 1986 facts and significance
Facts- A taxi driver was killed when a concrete block was thrown onto the motorway. Murder was decided before the Lords substituted for manslaughter
Significance- A taxi driver was killed when a concrete block was thrown onto the motorway. Murder was decided before the Lords substituted for manslaughter
–the higher the probability of an outcome, the more foreseeable it would be to the defendant, and the more foreseeable it was, the more likely there was to be intention, however this was only evidence of intention and does not constitute intention.
