WHAT WERE THE SPECIAL FEATURES IN JORDAN WHICH PROMPTED THE

COURT TO HOLD THAT THE CHAIN OF CAUSATION HAD BEEN BROKEN?

WHAT WAS THE TEST USED? IF THAT SAME TEST HAD BEEN USED IN

CHESHIRE CASE WOULD THE OUTCOME HAVE BEEN ANY DIFFERENT?

Prologue

In “result crimes”, it is necessary to prove the presence of a causal link. Causality is the link

between the conduct and consequences. It comprises of “actus reus” which amounts to the

action and “mens rea” proving the presence of a guilty mind. In crimes like murder or arson,

it is necessary to prove that the harm done was a direct result of the accused’s conduct. If harm

or damage is not directly done by the acts of an accused even though all other elements of

“actus reus” and “mens rea” were present then he would not be liable. He might be liable for

other offenses like an attempt.1 Causation is decided by the jury. In the case of strict liability,

the intent is irrelevant.

In a simplified manner, the judge refers to two principles of causation. An accused can only

be liable if “factual cause” and “legal cause” is present.

Factual Causation

Factual causation is proved if the conduct of an accused caused direct harm to the victim. The

conduct of an accused must be “sine qua non”(without which not) of the illegal act. In a

simplified way, it must be proved that the harm would not have occurred but for the actions

of the accused. This is proved by the “but for test”.

In a case where the accused put cyanide in her mother’ drink was acquitted of murder as the

1
White (1910)
direct cause of the victim’s death was a heart attack, not the poison2.

Merchant Case

In this case, the accused was not convicted of dangerous driving. The reason being, the court

held the victim would have still collided with the spikes if the accused had not been there.

Legal Causation

“Not all but for causes are legal causes of an event. Legal causation is closely related to ideas

of responsibiltiy and culpability”3

Legal causation looks into the substantial and operative cause which should be more than “de

minimis”(minimal things). “Reasonable forseeability” test is used to detremine the presence

of legal causation.

R vs Dalloway4

The accused was acquitted by the jury on the basis that the child’s death could not have been

avoided. Thus, victim’s death was not attributed to the negligence of accused. Moreover,

driving a cart on road is not culpable.

Novus Actus Interveniens5

If the causal link between the act and result of defendant’s conduct is broken by a third person

conduct the principle of “novus actus interveniens” will be fulfilled. The intervention by a

third party should be voluntary, independent and informed.6

2
Supra note 1
3
Glanville Williams in Textbook of Criminal Law(2nd edn) pg.381
4
1847, 2 Cox 273
D was driving a horse cart without holding the reigns. A child ran in front of the cart and was killed. The driver
was accused of manslaughter.
5
Latin maxim meaning, “new interveinig act”
6
R vs Pagett
Medical Cases

If the medical treatment causes complications or magnifies the already existing condition of a

victim and escalates the death, it might break the causal link. Medical case can break the causal

link if, (a) the death occurs due to some medical treatment after the prior wounds have been

recovered. (b) Where wrong treatment is given due to some ulterior hidden motive. (c) The

treatment was correct but the victim dies due to the negligence on part of the doctor.

R vs. JORDAN(1956)7

The defendant stabbed the victim resultantly he was taken to a hospital for treatment. After

the recovery of the wounds he died because

1. Over dosage of the drug he was intolerant to.

2. Pneumonia caused by the excessive amount of liquid.

It was held by the jury that the wound was not the direct cause of victim’s death because the

wounds had recovered. However, the causal link was broken by the treatment.8

Evaluating R vs Jordan

The defendant was not liable of victim’s death because the wounds were recovered and there

were no chances for the victim to die of them. Whereas, the medical treatment which was the

subsequent independant act had broken the chain of causation. The medical treatment was the

operative cause of victim’s death. Hence, the medical treatment is the legal cause of victim’s

death as it is followed by liability. The defendant’s act was factual cause and did not cause

death of the victim.

The causal link was broken by the medical treatment this was proved by some particular,

special factors.

7
40 Cr App R 152
8
Hallet J pg. 157
1. The victim was given a high dose of the drug he was intolerant towards. Hence, this shows

the conduct of the medical officers.

2. The wound was completely recovered with no operative cause.

3. The treatment given by the medical officers were substantially faulty.

4. The doctors failed to act in a reasonable manner and the treatment was the substantial and

operative cause of victim’s death.

To exmaine the case “but for test” is used. Which clearly shows how the medical treatment

has interrupted the causal link between the conduct and result of the defendant.

The victim would not have died but for the treatment causing pneumonia is the correct

hypothyesis of this case.

The defendant was not held liable due to the independant and informed act by the medical

center.

R vs CHESHIRE9

Defendant had shot the victim in leg and abdomen. When taken to the hospital some

respiratory problems ensued a tracheotomy. For the time being he got better after two months

the victim died of complications arising from tracheotomy. Victim’s windpipe was obstructed

due to narrowing where the tracheotomy was performed, “a rare but non unknown

complication”.

The court of appeal upheld defendant’s appeal even though the wounds had healed at time of

death. The court of appeal stated the respiratory problem to be the direct condequence of

defendant’s act and medical treatment has not broken chain of causation. The treatment was

not “extraordinary”. The word extra-ordinary meant “unforseeable”.10

9
(1991) 1 WLR 844
10
Beldam LJ, pg 677
Evaluating R vs Cheshire

It is obsevered that in rare conditions where the medical treatment is independant and free

from the prior act of defendant in form of a positive act the medical treatment may break the

causal link and renders the defendant’s act “insignificant”.

The act of the defandant caused respiratory problems in the victim. In order to treat the

problem occured due to defendant’s act tracheotomy was necessary, hence medical treatment

was not independant. The causal link had not broken because the disorder was had not been

fully recovered, the wounds were still recovering and were the operative cause and the

treatment was to alleviate the condition.

The same “but for used” can be used to assess the causal link by looking into the matter. Death

of the victim would not have occured but for defendant’s act of shooting the victim. If “but

for test” is used the result would not have been any different because the medical treatment

was not independant or “extraordinary” rather it was to alleviate the condition.

Conclusion

Concluding the mentioned argument I would like to state that the “but for test” used in Jordan

case proved the breakage of causal link due to the independant and “extraordinary” condcut

of the medical officers whereas, in the case of Cheshire the causal link remained itnact due to

the reasonable medical treatment used to alleviate the existing condition which was the result

of defendant’s act of shooting him.