Key Aspects of The Law of Causation - Coursework Example

The Law of Causation The causation requirement in criminal law requires a two stage analysis process, with the first requirement being to establish the cause-in-fact and the second part of the test is based upon general rules of causation, wherein the basic purpose is to establish that the defendant’s actions were the primary cause of the victim’s death.1 In order to successfully establish causation in fact, the “but for” test that was laid out in the case of R v White2 must be applied. According to this test, the prosecution must prove that but for the defendant’s actions, the death of the victim would not have taken place. In the case of R v White, the defendant added poison to his mother’s drink, but she died of a heart attack before the poison could take effect. The defendant was convicted of attempted murder rather than homicide, because his action in poisoning his mother’s drink was not the direct cause of her death. While posing the question, “but for the defendant’s act, would the victim have died?” the answer in this particular case was that the victim would have died anyway due to the heart attack. As a result, a direct causal link could not be established between the defendant’s act and the victim’s death, therefore it was not held to be a substantial and operating cause of death. In order to constitute the substantial cause of death, the defendant’s actions should therefore amount to the major and principal cause of death, irrespective of the fact that there may have been intervening events that broke the link of causation. This principle also arose in the case of R v Smith3, where it was held that the defendant’s action would be held as the cause of the victim’s death, only if it could be shown that it was the operating and substantial cause of the victim’s death. In this case, the defendant stabbed the victim who died in the hospital, but in the interim he had been dropped twice and the medical officer treated him in a manner that did not recognize the seriousness of his injuries. However, the Court held that despite these intervening events that had broken the chain of causation and could have contributed to the death of the victim, the stabbing was the substantial cause of the victim’s death and defendant was therefore convicted of murder. In the case of R v Cheshire4the defendant shot the victim who was taken to the hospital and died two months later. In this case, it was argued that the chain of causation had been broken by negligent medical treatment, which caused a rare complication to develop. However, in its analysis, the Court held that while the negligence of the treatment may have been the immediate cause of death, this did not excuse the responsibility of the accused, because the gunshot wound was the substantial cause of death and the contribution made by the accused’s acts was therefore significant enough to indict him. As opposed to this, in the case of R v Jordan5 which involved a similar set of circumstances where the victim was stabbed and died a few days later in the hospital, had a different outcome because the actions of the accused in inflicting the stab wounds were not deemed to be the substantial cause of death. In this case, the victim had been given an antibiotic to which he was allergic and large amounts of intravenous fluid, which was held to be wrong treatment that could have contributed to the victim’s death. As a result, the Court held that the stab wound was merely the setting on which a fresh set of circumstances causing death operated, therefore the stab wound itself could not be held to be the substantial case of death. On this basis the defendant was acquitted, because the main reason for the death was attributed to be the faulty treatment rather than the defendant’s actions. In the case of R v Mellor6 an elderly man was beaten up by some hooligans and died in the hospital two days later. In this case it was argued that the substantial cause of death was not the beating that the old an had received but the negligence in the medical treatment that was provided to the old man. However, in its judgment the Court pointed out that its job was to determine whether the accused’s act had contributed significantly to the victim’s death, rather than looking into contributory negligence and it held that the injuries inflicted by the defendant had significantly contributed to the death of the old man two days later7. The law of causation thus holds that when the victim dies of some other cause, but which would not have come about if it had not been for the defendant’s act, then the defendant is liable as his/her actions will be held to be the substantial cause of death. For example, in the case of R v Pagett8, the defendant was trying to resist arrest and held a girl in front of him while he fired at a policeman. The policeman instinctively fired back in return and the girl was killed. In deciding this case, the Court held that the defendant was the primary and major cause of the girl’s death, because the reasonable actions of a third party (the policeman) in self defence could not be seen to be a new act intervening and breaking the chain of causation. Therefore, in the absence of such a new intervening act which could be said to have contributed substantially to the death of the girl, it was the defendant’s actions that were held to be the primary cause of death. In the event that some entirely unforeseen event that is not connected at all with the accused’s actions should intervene and bring about its own consequence, then such an act of God may be held to have broken the chain of causation. This was the issue in the case of Southern water authority v Pegrum and Pegrum9 where it was held that an act of God had caused flooding and the negligence of the defendants was not held to be the substantial or main reason for the deaths that occurred. When death of a victim is caused by more than one source, that is when the Court has to determine which was the main cause of death, since all the various sources could have contributed to the death, however one of them will be held to be the major and substantial cause of death. In the case of R v Malcharek10the defendant attacked a woman and caused severe injuries, so that she had to be put on a life support machine. In the woman’s case, the doctors at the hospital determined that she was brain dead and switched off the machine. Therefore there were two causes that the woman’s death could be attributed to – the attack by the defendant and the doctors switching off the life support machine. However in its decision, the Court held that the defendant’s attack was the primary and substantial cause of the woman’s death. The purpose of the life support machine had been merely to hold the impact of those wounds in abeyance, as soon as the machine was switched off the original wounds continued to cause the death of the victim. On the basis of the above cases, it may therefore be concluded that the question of substantial cause of death arises in those cases where the death of the victim can be attributed to more than one source, as a result of which the causative agent remains unclear. In such cases, the Court will attempt to determine which out of all the causes, would be the one that contributed to the greatest extent to the death. This will be the one deemed to be the substantial cause of death. In the case of R v Pagett cited above for example, the death of the girl occurred at the gun of the policeman. But the policeman responded to events instigated by the defendant who was also the one placing the child in the path of danger. As a result, his actions were the substantial cause of death, rather than the policeman who was a third party reacting in self defense. Similarly, in the case of R v Jordan cited earlier, the defendant was not held liable for the death of the victim, because when placing the question of whether but for the defendant the victim would have died, the answer was that the defendant could have died anyway due to the faulty treatment that he received, while there was every possibility of his recovering in the hospital. The substantial cause of death is therefore that particular action or set of actions that is most likely to have caused a victim’s death. The actions should be such that a direct link of causation can be established between the act and the victim’s death, even if some events have intervened in between. It is only if those intervening events were so significant that they could have contributed in large measure to the death of the victim that the chain link of causation will be deemed to be broken. Bibliography * Heaton, Russell, 2006. “Criminal law textbook”, Oxford University Press. * Molan, Michael T and Hungerford-Welch, Peter, 1997. “Sourcebook on Criminal Law” Cavendish Publishing Cases cited: * R v Cheshire (1991) 3 All ER 670 * R v Jordan (1956) 40 Cr Ap Rev 152 * R v Malcharek (1981) 73 Crim App Rev 173 * R v Mellor (1996) 2 Cr Ap Rev 245 * R v Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App Rev 279 * R v White (1910) 2 KB 124 * R v Smith (1959) 2 QB 35 * Southern Water authority v Pegrum and Pegrum (1989) Crim LR 442 (DC) Read More