Causation

R v Blaue (1975) 3 All ER 446.  Causation in Law

R v Jordan  [1956] 40 Cr App Rep 152. Causation in Law

R v Malcharek (1981) Causation in Law - switching off a life-support machine.

The victim had been shot in the stomach and leg by the accused, during an argument in a fish and chip shop. He was operated on but experience breathing difficulties and he had to have a tracheotomy tube inserted. He died two months later.

It was discovered that his windpipe had narrowed and this caused the severe breathing difficulties that he was experiencing at the time of his death. It was argued that this was due to the negligence of the hospital when the tracheotomy tube was fitted and this, therefore, had broken the chain of causation. The trial judge directed the jury that a non actus intervenens would only have occurred if the doctors had acted recklessly. Thus, the defendant was found guilty.

The Court of Appeal criticised the Judgeís reference to recklessness, but still upheld the conviction. The court came to the conclusion that despite the fact that the immediate cause of death was due to the negligence of the doctors, this would not excuse the defendant from liability unless 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".

The C of A clearly considered that the defendants action made a 'significant contribution' to the death.

See also R v Jordan

R v Jordan  [1956] 40 Cr App Rep 152.

The victim was stabbed. He was admitted to hospital and died 8 days later, with the defendant being convicted of murder. Later evidence came to light that the medical treatment had been ëpalpably wrongí, and the defendant successfully appealed against the conviction.

The new evidence showed that the victim had been given Terramycin, to which he had proved to be allergic. It had been withdrawn by one Doctor, but inadvertently reintroduced later by another Doctor. Large quantities of liquid had also been given intravenously and broncho-pneumonia had set in.

The conviction therefore was squashed, because two separate features and independent features of medical treatment were, in the opinion of Doctors, palpably wrong and these were the direct and immediate cause of death.

R V Pagett 1983

D held his girlfriend in front of him as a shield and fired at the police, who returned fire. 

Although she was killed by police bullets, D was held to be the factual cause of her death as 'but for' his actions she would not have died.

R v White (1910) - ëBut for' Rule.

A Defendant will not be liable for the death if the victim would have died at the same time regardless of the Dís act or omission.

Here the D gave his mother poison, but before it had a chance to take effect she died of a heart attack, which was not caused by the poison. He was not liable for her death  

Q. What might he have been liable for?

A. Attempted murder

R v Blaue (1975) 3 All ER 446.

In this case the victim, a Jehovah's witness, refused a blood transfusion after being attacked by the accused. The victim consequently bled to death as a result of his injuries.

D was held to be liable for causing the death, since you take the victim as you find them (the thin skull principle).

R v Malcharek (1981)

M's wife was admitted to hospital after she had been stabbed her nine times by M. She seemed to recover, but suffered a setback and was put on a life support machine. Doctors concluded that brain damage had occurred and eventually had to switch off the life-support machine.

Malcharek was convicted of murder despite the medical intervention.

R v Smith (1959)

Smith a soldier, stabbed another soldier. V was dropped twice by other people on the way to the hospital and when there he was given poor medical treatment and died. The court held that the fact that he had been dropped and the poor medical treatment were NOT enough to break the chain of causation. Since, the original wound was still the 'operating and substantial' cause of death.