Criminal: Causation

Causation

The prosecution must prove that the defendants conduct caused the consequences to occur. They must prove that the defendant both factually and legally caused the consequences to occur.

Factual Causation

The prosecution must prove that but for the defendant’s actions the consequences would not have occurred.

White [1910]: The defendant put cyanide in his mother’s lemonade, she died of a heart attack, not due to the cyanide. Held, he did not factually cause her death.

Hallet [1969]: Involved a gay man. He made advances to another man. The defendant beat him up, left him on the sand whilst the tide was out. The tide came in and killed the victim. The defendant was held to be factually responsible for the victim’s death.

Mackie [1972]: A young toddler ran and fell down the stairs in order to escape his father’s threats. He died. The defendant was said to have factually cause the child’s death.

Legal Causation

The prosecution must prove that the defendant’s actions were the substantial and operating cause of the consequence.

Pagett [1983]: The police actions of shooting Pagett’s pregnant girlfriend who had been used as a shield by him were considered a “reasonable act performed for the purpose of self defence” and thus the girlfriend’s death was caused by the accused. Held, Pagett was the substantial and operating cause of the victim’s death.

Novus Actus Interveniens

These are where the chain of causation has been broken by another event such as the victim’s own act, act of a third party or by unexpected events.

Jordan [1856] (Medical Treatment): The defendant stabbed the victim, his wound would have healed, however the doctors wrongly injected him resulting in the death of the victim. Held, the medical treatment was palpably wrong to break the chain of causation.

Smith [1959] (Medial Treatment): Involved a barrack room brawl. The victim was stabbed, puncturing his lung. He was taken to the medial orderlies where his stretcher was dropped twice. The medical orderly was overworked and failed to notice the victim’s punctured lung. The victim died 2 hours later. If the lung had been noticed by the orderly the victim would have had a 75% chance of recovery. Held, Smother was convicted as the medical treatment did not break the chain of causation as the victim died from the blood loss from the initial stab wound.

Mellor [1996] (Medial Treatment): The victim of a severe beating died of aspiration pneumonia. If the victim had been given oxygen by the medics, the correct treatment, he would have had a 90% chance of survival. Held, the defendant significantly contributed to the victim’s death.

Cheshire [1991] (Medical Treatment): The defendant seriously injured the victim. The inflicted wound was no longer life threatening. The doctors inserted a breathing pipe into the victim but failed to notice scarring was appearing around the pipe. This caused tightening of the wind pipe and his death.

Blaue [1975] (Thin Skull Rule): A woman was stabbed seven times. At the hospital she refused a blood transfusion because she was a Jehovah’s Witness. Held, you must take your victim as you find them.

Malcharek and Steel [1981] (Medial Treatment): The defendant stabbed his wife nine times, she lost 1½ litres of blood. She appeared to recover but her heart stopped and she suffered brain damage. The doctors covered five of the six possible tests to determine whether she was functionally dead, they turned off the life support and she died completely. Held, the doctors did not break the chain of causation even though they did not follow the procedure completely.

Marjoram [2000] (Victim’s Own Act): The defendant shouted abuse at the victim through his hotel door. The victim, in order to escape the threats, jumped out of the bedroom window, fell and sustained injury. Held, there was a causal link. The reasonable person would have foreseen the victim attempting to escape as a result of the defendant’s actions.

Roberts [1971] (Victim’s Own Act): A man picked up a girl in his car. He tried to remove her clothing, terrified she jumped out of the moving car. He was charged with causing her injuries. Held, the victim’s action was reasonable in the circumstances. If the victim’s action was so daft and unforeseeable then it would break the chain of causation.

Williams and Davies [1992] (Victim’s Own Act): The victim gave a lift to a hitchhiker. The victim jumped out of the car to avoid being robbed and sustained injuries. Held, this is a reasonable and foreseeable response.

Dear [1996]: The defendant’s 12 year old daughter complained that the victim had sexually assaulted her. The victim was stabbed with a Stanley knife by the defendant. Twelve days later the victim died in hospital. The evidence suggested that the victim himself had unpicked his stitches or deliberately didn’t stop the blood flowing in order to commit suicide. Held, the defendant was liable for his death.