Criminal law- Causation
R v white
D put poison in his mothers drink, V later died however medical evidence showed that she died of a heart attack rather than poison, so D was convicted of attempted murder as he could not satisfy the but for test.
R v Dalloway
D was standing on a horse and car as it drove along a public road, he was not holding onto the reins, during this a small child ran out into the road and was killed, expert evidence showed that even if D had a tight hold of the reins, he would not have been able to stop the cart before it killed the child, held not guilty.
R v Dyson
V was suffering from meningitis, which contributed to the death, it was held that Ds act need not be the only or main cause of death
R v Mckechnie
V had an ulcer which contributed to the death, held Ds act need not be the only or main cause of death
R v smith
D stabbed a soldier who was then dropped twice and recieved negligent treatment, it was held that the AR only has to be an operating and substantial cause, D was held guilty for murder
R v Cato
Cato and V prepared their own syringes and then injected each other with heroin, V later died and cato was convicted of murder because the injection was the cause of death
R v Pagett
D kidnapped his girlfriend and she was killed by a police offier, D was convicted of murder. held D was murdered are reasonable acts of self defence do not break the chain of causation
R v Micheal
Ds child was living with a foster mother, D wanted her child dead and gave the foster mother poison pretending it is medicine. the child died, Held that the act of an innocent agent does not break the chain of causation
R v Rafferty
rafferty and two other defendants set upon V and beat him up and took his bank card, D lef tot get money out of the bank and while he was gone the other two beat and drowned him, they had gone beyond the original plan. held, the conduct by the other Ds was a new intervening act that relieved rafferty of liability of the homicide.
R v Jordan
Jordan stabbed a man as a result of a disturbance. V later died. post-mortem found that the cause of death was bronchi-pneumonia following the abdominal injury. the additional evidence opined that the death was not caused by the wound at all but that the medical treatment was inappropriate
R v Cheshire
for an act by a third party to break the chain of causation, it must be significantly independent and potent that it renders the original cause insignificant; the level of fault of the third party is irrelevant. held D was guilty, no break to the chain of causation
R v Malcherek; R v steel
Both malcherek and steel stabbed the victims, with the result of both of them ending up on life support. some time later the life support machines were disconnected as there was no chance of improvement. there was no evidence that the original injuries inflicted stopped being the operative cause of death, they were both guilty
R v Hayward
D was arguing with his wife, and she ran out with him chasing her, unbeknownst to both parties, V had an abnormal heart condition. a person with this condition would die from a combination of fright, strong emotion and physical exertion. V died. D was liable for causing the death due to the thin skull rule.
R v watson
D broke into the house of an 87-year-old and verbally abused him and left without taking anything. V had a severe heart condition and later died of a heart attack. D was convicted of UDAM.
R v Blaue
D was stabbed four times and was admitted to hospital; she required treatment which involved a blood transfusion. the victim was a Jehovah's witness and refused the blood transfusion. D was charged with DIM REP. The stab wound caused the death and Thin skull rule
R v holland
D had cut V on the finger, the finger became infected, and V was told it should be amputated or else their life would be at risk, V refused the amputation, and V died. the death in the end was caused by the cut
R v Dear
D had attacked V and cut them round the wrists, V was treated and sent home, and two days later, V died. V argued that D either opened the wounds or they naturally reopened and V did nothing about it. it was held that the original injury was the operating and substantial cause of the death
R v Wallace
D poured acid onto V's face, and V was permanently disfigured, suffering severe medical complications and he requested euthanasia. causation could be found
R v Roberts
A young woman accepted a lift from D to a party, D drove to a deserted location and made sexual advances but was rejected, later D continued to make sexual advances, so she jumped out of the car and sustained injury. D was guilty as it was a reasonable foreseeable consequence of his actions
R v Williams
D picked up a hitchhiker. D attempted to rob the victim who jumped out of the moving vehicle and his his head. they were not guilty as there was not enough evidence that the Ds act had led to the victims reaction
R v Marjoram
The D, a youth, inflicted GBH by forcing his way into a 16-year-olds room on the third floor in a hostel, causing her, in fear, to jump and fall to the ground through the window, receiving life-threatening injuries, this was held to be foreseeable and D was guilty
R v Kennedy
D and V were living together. V asked for some heroin and so D prepared a dose and passed him the syringe and he self injected, he died several hours later. it was held that the victim was a fully informed and consenting adult who had freely and voluntarily self-administered the drug without and pressure from the defendant.
R v Rebelo
V purchased diet pills from Rebelos company and takes 8 of them and dies. held that the decision to take these pills was not fully voluntary therefore chain remained intact
R v Field
field befriended Peter and pretended to have a relationship with him, during this he drugged him and convinced peter to change his will to have Peter die. he gave Peter a bottle of 60% whisky. held that the undisclosed murderous intentions of D meant that drinking was not fully voluntary
what must you establish for causation?
- You must prove that:
1. D’s conduct was the factual cause of the prohibited result; and
2. D’s conduct in law caused the result
what is factual causation?
- white [1910]
- the ‘but for’ test- whether but for D’s conduct the result would have happened
- Dalloway [1847]- horse and cart without hands on the rains and a child runs out and gets killed by the wheel.
what is legal causation?
- D’s act need not be the only or main cause of death: R v Dyson [1908] 2 KB 454; R v McKechnie (1992) 94 Cr App R 51
- To be the legal cause it must be the Operating and substantial cause – Smith [1959] 2 QB 35; or more than an insubstantial or insignificant contribution – Cato (1976) 62 Cr App R 41
- must be no intervening act
what is the intervening act of natual events?
If foreseeable D will still be liable – see Perkins example (1946) 36 J Cr L & Cr- if you assalut some one in a building and before they gain consciousness an eathquake strikes them and kills them, D will not be liable as the eathquake was unforseeable.
what is the intervening act of a third party?
must be a free, informed and voluntary act
- R v Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279 – a reasonable act performed for the purpose of self- preservation does not operate as a NAI
- Michael (1840) 9 C & P 356 – act of an innocent agent will not operate as a NAI
- R v Rafferty (Andrew Paul) [2007] EWCA Crim 1846 – the drowning of V by Taylor and Thomas was a new and intervening act in the chain of causation
what is the intervening act of medical treatment?
- R v Jordan (1956) 40 Cr App R 152
- Palpably wrong treatment ... which was direct and immediate cause of death
- R v Smith [1959] 2 QB 35
- Only if it can be said that the original wound is merely the setting in which another cause operates can it be said that death does not result from the wound.....Only if the second cause is so overwhelming as to make the original wound merely part of the history can it be said that death does not flow from the wound
- R v Cheshire [1991] 3 All ER 670
- D’s acts need not be sole or even main cause as long as his acts contribute significantly.
R v Malcherek, R v Steel [1981] 2 All ER 422
what is the egg shell skull rule?
- R v Hayward (1908) 21 Cox CC 692 - Thyroid gland condition
- Watson [1989] 2 All ER 865 - Old man with serious heart condition
- R v Blaue [1975] 3 All ER 446
- It has long been the policy of the law that those who use violence on other people must take their victims as they find them ... this means the whole man not just the physical man
what is causation and the victim?
- Holland [1841] 2 Mood & R 351 –
- the real question is, whether in the end the wound inflicted by the prisoner was the cause of death
- Dear [1996] Crim LR 595 –
- the only issue was whether the original injuries were an operating and significant cause of death
R v Wallace [2018] EWCA Crim 690 –
what are the rules around the victim escaping?
- R v Roberts (1972) 56 Cr App R 95
- ‘so daft or unexpected that no reasonable man could be expected to foresee it’
- R v Williams and Davis [1992] 2 All ER 183
what are the rules around druggs supplied to V?
the previous law holds that the taking of drugs is a matter of free will and a fact of life.
Dias, Rodgers, Finlay, Kenedy
what does the relevance of intention of supplier have to do with this?
R v Field-The undisclosed murderous intention of the defendant, in our judgment, substantively changed the nature of the undertaking upon which PF embarked, in this particular case