Lecture 4: Causation

Overview of the: Actus reus

Conduct - need to see if the crime is an omission / act
Circumstance - eg. Murder, was the killing of a person?? The context around the defendant
Consequence

Causation in fact: did the result come about because of D’s conduct?
Causation in law: was D’s conduct a substantial blameworthy and operating cause?

Two types of causation:

1. Factual causation
- But for test, a test for determining whether the defender is the cause in fact of the crime
- But for test ‘but for the defenders act without the act would the consequence still have
occurred’ ?

Elements of the test:

- Objective
- Looks at proximity
- Common sense approach eg. the case of white: White ( the defendant ) tried to kill his
mother by putting poison in her drink and intended to kill her + admitted his intent was to
kill her
- It was not clear of how much she had she later died of a heart attack
Question: Is he responsible ?
- Court: said he was not guilty because of factual causation, the result wasn’t caused by
him it was caused by heart failure not connected to the poison but he was guilty of
attempted murder which is a conduct crime ( no need for a result )
- Clear he was not responsible

2. Legal causation
- substantial blameworthy operating

Substantial:
- D’s conduct, must have made a substantial contribution to the result

Legal causation:
- Legal cause must be substantial blameworthy and operative
- Eg. Did the acts significantly result in his death
- Eg. Jordan case
 - Substantial ? Did the defendant play more than a minimal role ? The defender doesn’t
need to be the sole cause. Can it be more than 1 cause that contributes to the victims
death?

- Relationship between fault and result

- Blameworthy - result must be due to the defendant's conduct
Eg.
Hughes case: Horse on railway hughes left the reins on the horse back the child was killed by
the horse
- clear that he was negligent in his driving and he was the factual cause but even if he had
control of the horse the child would still have died
- Convicted of causing death
- Defendant appealed his conduct was not blameworthy of the actual death committed the
offences but not the death

Operative:
- at the time that the result occurs the conduct must still be the cause of the result eg.
Time person dies it is still the time that the reason of the death is due to the act

Breaking the chain of conduct:

Intervening acts:
- If the conduct is the substantial cause then despite the act the defendant is still liable
- Actions etc capable of breaking the chain of causation between defendant conduct and
result eg. 2 people shoot a person but only one of the individuals bullet kills the person
not both

1. Natural interventions
- D is not liable if the intervening act is extraordinary or not foreseeable natural
consequence eg. Knocking someone out and leaving them near water and they drown
should they be held liable? It’s not an unforeseen circumstance
- Before the tide comes an earthquake happens and down the person goes ? Not
responsible
- Unforeseen by the D and unforeseeable to the person then the chain of causation is
broken, here D remains liable for what she has caused but will not be held liable for the
death as D’s original conduct ( the attack ) was not the legal cause

2. Third party intervention

- can break the chain of c between conduct and result
- Free voluntary and informed intervention by 3rd does an act that triggers the result they
should also be responsible
- R v pagett - he caused the death

Cases:
Eg. jordan
- D stabbed V. in hospital, V’s wound was mostly healed. A doctor administered a drug to
which V was intolerant to. The treatment was ‘palpably wrong’ so D was charged with
murder.
Eg. smith
- As long as the injury inflicted by D is still ongoing D will remain the cause

3. Intervention from the victim

- Foreseeability: eg. if D jumps out and scares V who is sitting on a window ledge
and V falls and dies, D will be the legal cause of the death. V’s response in fright
is therefore foreseeable
- However, if D jumps out and scares V who is sitting on the sofa and V jumps runs
up stairs and jumps out the window it is unlikely that D’s conduct will be the legal
cause as V’s response was unforeseeable and ‘daft’

Eg. roberts. D drove V home and began to make unwanted sexual advances to her. V jumped
out of the car and suffered bodily harm. D was charged with assault.court: the V attempted
escape was the natural result of what the D had done.

- Voluntariness: following D’s conduct, if the result comes about because of V’s voluntary
will the chain of causation will be broken. Eg. if D gives V a hammer and V uses the
hammer to commit criminal damage D will not be the legal cause. The chain of causation
will be broken by V’s voluntary will.

Case: kennedy
- D supplied V with drugs. V self injected herself and died. D was charged with
manslaughter on the basis that his conduct caused the death. Second case: it was held
that his conduct was not the legal cause because V’s voluntary will to inject herself with
the drug broke the chain.

- Vulnerabilities: D must take the victim as he finds him. Eg. where D’s punches V in a way
that would only cause bruising but V’s condition means that she suffers greater harm D
will be the legal cause of the harm it will not break the chain.
- Case: blaue. D stabbed V. V required a blood transfusion to save her life but refused on
religious grounds. V died and D was charged with manslaughter.

Innocent agents cases:

- mother wanted to kill child left bottle with poison and told babysitter to give to the child
and told her it was medicine babysitter didn’t give
- Another child heard the mother and gave it to the baby instead
- Unless the person is knowingly employed by d the d is still liable the mother would still
be liable

Justified and excused responses:

 - if intervention by foreseeable act by foreseeable act done for self preservation or to
execute legal duty d is still liable
- The defendant took his partner and used her as a shield in a standoff with the police
- The police fired and the girl died. Who is responsible? The police would have been
responsible but context wise the bullet was fired in self defence the boyfriend was
responsible it was not a free and voluntary act

Medical intervention
- under a duty to act
- Fault must be such as to render ds act insignificant if a murder was to be avoided.
Generally unwilling to break it when the treatment follows on from ds unlawful act.

R v cheshire 1991

For an act by a third party to break the chain of causation, it must be sufficiently independent
and potent that it renders the original cause insignificant, the level of fault of the third party is
irrelevant

D shot V in leg and stomach

V died nearly two months later, following negligent medical treatment
The judge gave direction to the jury that the chain of causation was broken only if they find the
doctor to have been grossly negligent i.e., reckless
D was convicted for murder

Appeal dismissed; there was no break in the chain of causation

The judge erred in his direction by referencing fault, but the outcome was correct

For the defendant to be responsible, his acts ‘need not be the sole cause or even the main
cause of death it being sufficient that his acts contributed significantly to that result.’: p. 851
The defendant’s responsibility is excluded only when ‘the negligent treatment was so
independent of his acts, and in itself so potent in causing death, that they regard the
contribution made by his acts as insignificant.’: p. 852
Falling below the standard of a competent doctor is not enough, the acts of a doctor must be
‘extraordinary’ to be considered independent of the conduct of the defendant and this is highly
unlikely

R v jordan 1956

Jordan, who worked for the United States Air Force, stabbed a man as the result of a
disturbance. The victim died in hospital eight days later. The post-mortem found that the
victim died of broncho-pneumonia following the abdominal injury sustained. The court in the
first instance found Jordan guilty. The doctor who treated the victim contacted the United
States Air Force authorities as he took a different view as to the cause of death. Leave was
approved for the gathering of further evidence.

The treatment was palpably wrong.

 The additional evidence opined that the death was not caused by the wound at all but that the
medical treatment was inappropriate. The victim was intolerant to terramycin which was
noticed and initially stopped before being continued the following day by another doctor. They
had also introduced abnormal quantities of fluid which waterlogged the victim’s lungs. This
evidence was not available at the initial trial and it was believed that a jury would listen to
opinion of two doctors that had the standing the experts did in this case. On this basis, the
conviction was quashed.

R v smith 1959

The defendant was a soldier who stabbed one of his comrades during a fight in an army
barracks. The victim was taken to receive medical attention, but whilst being carried to the
hospital was dropped twice by those carrying him. Once at the hospital, he received negligent
medical treatment; the medics failed to diagnose a puncture to his lung. The victim died of his
injuries, and the defendant was charged with murder and convicted at first instance. The
defendant appealed on the basis that the victim would have survived but for the negligence of
those treating him. He also argued that his confession had been obtained under duress and
was therefore inadmissible.

The court held that the stab wound was an operating cause of the victim’s death; it did not
matter that it was not the sole cause. In order to break the chain of causation, an event must
be:

“…unwarrantable, a new cause which disturbs the sequence of events [and] can be described
as either unreasonable or extraneous or extrinsic” (p. 43).

The chain of causation was not broken on the facts of this case.

With respect to the issue of duress, the court held that as the threat was made some time
before the relevant confession and was no longer active at the time of the defendant’s
statement, it did not render the evidence inadmissible. The conviction for murder was
therefore upheld.

- Withdrawal of life support systems does not break the chain of c

The thin skull rule: Take the victim as you find them
- The d must take the v as they find them:
- Includes vs refusal of life saving medical treatment per r v blaue 1975( due to religous
reasons) will not amount to a break of c

After the victim refused the defendant’s sexual advances the defendant stabbed the victim
four times. Whist the victim was admitted to hospital she required medical treatment which
involved a blood transfusion. The victim was a Jehovah’s Witness whose religious views
precluded accepting a blood transfusion. She was informed that without a blood transfusion
she would die but still refused to countenance treatment as a result of her religious conviction.
The victim subsequently died and the defendant was charged with manslaughter by way of
 diminished responsibility. The defendant appealed.

- Plus vs unknown medical condition per r v hayward 1908

This case established the thin skull principle, which states that in cases where the victim
suffers harm due to an abnormal susceptibility, such as a medical condition, regardless of
whether the defendant knew about the victim’s abnormal susceptibilities, the chain of
causation is not broken

The defendant (D) was arguing with his wife (V)

V ran out of the house with D chasing her
Unbeknownst to both parties, V had an abnormal heart condition. A person with this condition
could die from a combination of fright, strong emotion and physical exertion.
V collapsed from running and died

D convicted of manslaughter.
Ridley J
D’s actions were a factual and legal cause of V’s death
V’s abnormal heart condition did not break the chain of causation; D was required to take V as
he found her

Victim can change the chain:

- Roberts eg. woman took a lift with a taxi driver he touched her inappropriately she opens
the car door and she was injured
- court: utterly daft within the range of the ordinary human being if the range is that could
be expected
- it is reasonable therefore her actions in opening the door was reasonable

Drug supply cases:

- supplying drugs victim takes and dies Kennedy o2 informed and voluntary act by a
responsible adult breaks the chain it is not the supplier but would still be liable for a
crime
- We are disposed to accept it as the law that death resulting from any normal treatment
employed to deal with a felonious injury may be regarded as caused by the felonious
injury, … this was not normal treatment. Not only one feature, but two separate and
independent features, of

Intervention Principles

Intervention from D ● Will only break the chain of c if it is part of a new transaction
Natural interventions ● Will only break the chain of c if it is unforeseen by D and unforeseeable by a
reasonable person

Interventions from the victim ● Will only break the chain of c if it is unforeseen by D and unforeseeable by a
person
● If it is free, voluntary
● D must take the victim as he finds him

Third party ● If unforeseen by D and unforeseeable by a person

● Free and voluntary
● Third parties and offences will apply different rules

Reform

1. Omissions

What extent should the law recognise a duty to act?

- Omissions will only satisfy the conduct of an offence if:

● The offence is capable of commission by omission

● D has recognised duty to act
● D breached that duty
Eg. if D watches a child drown and doesn't save them she will not be liable for the death she will
only be liable is she comes within the category creating a duty to act ( the child's parent )