actus reus (ii) - causation

In which category of actus reus is causation most relevant?

Conduct and consequence

Prosecution has to prove two separate elements:
D's act was the factual cause of the consequence;
D's act was the legal cause of the consequence

The defendant is guilty if the consequence would not have happened but for the defendant's conduct.

R v White (1910)

- Placed poison in hs mother's milk, to kill her
- Mother had died from heart attack, not the poson
- Didn't cause the death of his mother as her heart attack would have happened anyway

R v Paggett (1983)

- Took pregnant girlfriend by force, held her hostage
- Used her as a human shield - she was shot by police firing back at him
- Caused her death - event occured because of him/his act

R v Kimsey (1996)

- High speed car chase - one lost control, the other driver was then killed
- This was more than a slight or 'trifling' link

R v Hughes (2013)
- Driving competently but was uninsured - victim's car swerved and hit Hughes

Assume a doctor takes a blood sample from a patient (V) who is dying from gunshot wounds. The additional loss of blood further weakens the patient, and he dies ten minutes earlier than he would have done. Are the doctor's actions sufficient to be a "legal cause" of V's death?

• Not substantial enough to be a legal cause

R v Blaue (1975)

- Girl who needed blood transfusion after being stabbed was a Jehovah's Witness and didn't have the blood transfusion
- Defendant must have taken the victim as they found them; thus liable

Assume D shoots V who is taken to hospital. While in hospital, her doctor, who is inexperienced, negligently fails to recognise the true extent of her injuries. V dies because those injuries are improperly left untreated. In such a case, what can we say, in relation to causation, about:

a. The shooting by Diane?
- Factual cause
- Significant and substantial

b. The failure to treat properly?
- Factual cause
- Significant and substantial

Two defendants simultaneously shoot V through the heart. V dies instantly. What might each of the defendant's argue? Is it likely to be successful?

- Not factual cause is the argument
- No; can be multiple causes

Often referred to as breaking the chain of causation

i. Natural events

General principle: only breaks the chain of causation if extraordinary or unforeseeable and consequences are unintended

Gowans and Hillman (2003)

- Defendant inflicted serious injury to the victim, who entered into a coma
- Susceptible to infection in said coma, then died of it
- Not extraordinary so didn't break chain of causation

But

Pre-existing conditions: Master (2007)

- Stabbed, V had deep vein thrombosis and caused heart attack, then died
- Said to have caused her death (upholding Blaue)

ii. Human beings over than the victim themselves

If the original contribution by D is laying a direct contributory role at the time the harm occurs, then the new act by T is, at best (for D), just a concurrent cause. So, in such a case, the chain of causation is not broken.

So when can a new act break the chain of causation?

R v Michael (1840)

- D wanted to kill illegitimate child using poison; gave bottle of medicine to foster mother for child; foster mothers child gave medicine to illegitimate child
- Foster mothers child didn't break chain of causation

R v Paggett (1983)

- "Legal cause was the police"
- Actions of police were natural and foreseeable - didn't break chain of causation

Medical treatment is generally not enough to break the chain of causation, because it usually "foreseeable" - indeed doctors are dealing with consequences of D's actions so we could artificially ay their actions are not "free, deliberate and informed", but simply consequences of D's actions.

R v Smith (1959)

- Two soldiers, one stabbed in the lung by the other, was carried to hospital but dropped several times on the way - respiratory aid made the injury worse and he died
- Injury was still operating and substantial, 'acts of others don't replace D's actions'

R v Cheshire (1991)

- D shot V in the thigh and stomach, then was having breathing difficulty so was given tracheotomy two months later, died due to complications with said tracheotomy
- Medical treatment had to be so independent of D's actions to break the chain of causation

R v Malcherek (1981)

- Woman on life support; doctor's decided to turn life support off - D said it was the doctor's that killed V
- Not responsible

R v Jordan (1956)

- V was allergic to antibiotic - given it, had reaction, doctor's previously reacted quickly but the next day another doctor still gave a large dose of the antibiotic
- Actions were enough to break the chain of causation because they were so removed

iii. Acts of the victim themselves

If the defendant causes the victim to (re)-act in a reasonably foreseeable way, then injuries are still legally "caused" by the defendant and the chain of causation is not broken by the victim.

R v Roberts (1972)

- D tried to sexually assault a minor (at 20-40mph) and V jumped from the car
- Escaping is a foreseeable reaction and thus a natural result of what D said/did

V was seriously contemplating suicide. V was then shot, by D. V as dying painfully form the gunshot would. He then decided to slit his own throat. Can Douglas be said to have caused Vikram's death?

- Was a natural consequence so yes

R v Marjoram (2000)

- D was shouting abuse at V and kicking down door, V jumped out of window when D got into the room and sustained serious injuries
- V felt threatened and this was a natural consequence

R v Williams and Davis (1992)

- 2 people were driving, V was a hitchhiker and jumped from moving car when D tried to steal V's wallet leading to V dying from head injuries
- Action was not foreseeable

R v Kennedy (ii) (2007)

- D prepared heroin for V, gave it to V and V injected self which led to death
- Broke chain of causation as V's actions were free, deliberate and informed

So in summary for human beings and the victims themselves...

If the original contribution by D is playing a direct contributory role at the time the harm occurs, then the new act by T, at best (for D), is just a concurrent cause (Smith) and does not break the chain of causation. The original act is still "operating and substantial."

If the original contribution by D is no longer playing a direct contributory role at the time the harm occurs, then is the intervention of the other human being free, deliberate and informed?

- If so, then T's act breaks the chain of causation (Kennedy (ii))

- If not, then was it reasonably foreseeable?

- If so, then it willnot break the chain of causation (it is simply a consequence of D's act - Cheshire, Roberts, Marjoram, Michael, Paggett)

- If not, i.e. it was unforeseeable and extraordinary, then it will break the chain of causation (Jordan, Williams and Davis)

Remember someone is only liable for a failure to act, if there is a situation which gives rise toa  duty to act. In addition, it must be necessary to establish that their failure to act did cause the consequence (factual causation - see Morby) and legal causation (see hypothetical.)

Morby (1992)

- D had 8yr old child who died of smallpox, father decided not to gt medical treatment for V on religious grounds, could have saved him if he had recieved medical attention - not definite, however; no factual causation because of this

Alice arranges lunch with James. Alice later discovers she can't make it, but doesn't bother telling James. James dies in a car crash on the way to lunch. Had Alice told James, James would have eaten lunch at his office and not died. Does cause death factually - if Alice had acted, James would have lived; does not cause death legally - no substantial or significant link

It is also worth nothing that wwhilst usually you will need to establish the causation element of an omission, they cannot, on their own, break the chain of causation (Blaue)

refusal of treatment + issue in blaue

Action by D is significant and substantial but under Kennedy (2007), V's own action would break chain of causation. HOWEVER, actions of V are an omission and doesn't break chain of causation under Blaue. Therefore does not constitute novus actus interveniens/break chain of causation.

thin skull - omissions can't break chain of causation

negligent medical treatment - could the law allow medical negligence on the part of doctors to absolve other defendants (Blaue, Smith, Cheshire)?

Not under Blaue (it's an omission.)
Not under Smith (acts of doctors don't negate D being responsible.)
Not under Cheshire (treatment is a direct result of acts of defendants, not independent.)