Q) Discuss how far the actions of the victim or a third party can breach the chain of causation.

Critically assess how far the law in this area is fair and consistent.
Ans) This is question is related to causation and breaking that chain of causation. In this essay
we will first be defining what causation actually is and under what circumstances the chain of
causation tends to break. I will be supporting my answer using case laws and will then conclude
by analyzing how consistent and fair the current standard of the law of causation is.
Result crimes are criminal offences that require both; wrongful conduct as well as harm. In result
crime it is difficult to demonstrate that the accused’s actions or omissions significantly contribute
to the prohibited consequences. In criminal law this is a matter of causation and the prosecution
must prove it. In other words it must prove that the victim’s death was as a result of the
defendants actions. Causation involves a two-part inquiry to be held accountable for the
consequence. This is known as the factual cause and the legal cause.
Hart and Honore describe factual cause as “an event or act which makes the difference between
something happening and something not happening”. The most vital component of the factual
cause is the “but for principle”- the consequence would not have occurred as and when it did but
for defendant´s conduct. As in the case of White, where White wasn’t held accountable, even
though he had poisoned his mother’s drink but she died of a heart before consuming the drink.
As in this case the reason for death is independent to the defendant’s actions and the heart attack
was the operating cause the defendant would not be held liable. On the other hand in Dyson the
father was held accountable as his actions had accelerated the time when death would otherwise
occur. In this case the father did become the difference between something happening and not
happening.
The factual cause of a consequence will also be the legal cause but in case the factual cause is
not the sufficient the more substantial factor or the legal cause will be take into account. In the
case of Benge, Mr. Benge was found to have been the substantial and significant cause of the
accident. It was therefore irrelevant that the negligence of others had also contributed in some
way to the accident occurring. On the contrary in the case of Adam, Adam wasn’t convicted as
his actions were held not to be substantial enough. Similarly in Dalloway the defendant was
acquitted as evidence produced demonstrated that the child’s death could not have been avoided,
hence the defendant’s action was not the legal cause. 
If a third party contributes to a harmful result, this will not break the chain of causation if D’s
original act was still a substantial and operative cause of harm. In the case of Smith, Smith was
held accountable as his actions were still a substantial cause of the harm and were still operative
at the time of his death. The judges stated that an “overwhelming” cause which make the original
wound part of “history” only then the chain of causation will be broken. Similarly in Pagett
where D used his pregnant wife as a human shield and she died during the cross fire, D was
convicted for manslaughter as the defendant had done two dangerous acts which a sober and
reasonable person would realize were likely to cause harm, firstly by firing at the officer and
secondly by forcing the victim to shield him from return fire. Both of these acts had in fact
contributed significantly to the victim’s death and hence the chain of causation wasn’t broken.
Moreover the chain of causation will not be broken if the defendants act couple with the victims
underlying mental/physical condition results in the death of the victim. This principle is also
known as the “Egg Shell Skull Rule”. Like in the case of Hayward D chased the victim and
threatened her, because the victim had a weak heart she died of a heart attack. Although a
reasonable person wouldn’t have died in such circumstances due the principle “take the victim as
the victim is” D was convicted. Similarly in Blaue where V due to being stabbed by D needed
blood transfusion, she refused it based on personal beliefs and passed away. In this case the
Court of Appeal ruled that that the D’s act was still substantial and the operating cause of death.
In Holland when the victim refused amputation the Court once against held D accountable
reassuring the principle of “Take your victim as it is”.
Medical intervention is another aspect of causation and at times it may or may not break the
chain of causation. In Cheshire it was stated that intervening medical treatment could only be
regarded as excluding the responsibility of the defendant if it was so independent of the
defendant's act and so potent in causing the death, that the jury regard the defendant's acts as
insignificant. In Cheshire this wasn’t the case and the defendants act was the more substantial
reason hence he was convicted. In the case of Adam, Dr Bodkins Adams had administered a
lethal dose of pain killers to a terminally ill patient and he was acquitted. Devlin J stated that a
doctor is entitled to do all that is proper and necessary to relieve pain and suffering even if such
measures may incidentally shorten life. However in the case of Jordan Court of Appeal after
additional evidence ruled that victims care was gravely inappropriate and led to his death. This
maybe a source of confusion as does or does not gross negligence by medical professionals break
the chain of causation. In recent cases it has been seen that only when doctors are “palpably
wrong” the chain of causation will break.
One of the most crucial cases of intervening acts involve the supply of drug. The court for a
number of years were unable to decide as to which test to apply. The question was that was the
unlawful supply of drugs the legal cause or the fact that the victim is exercising free choice by
injecting that drug. In the case of Finlay the courts held that the supplier will be liable for any
death cause due to the injecting the drug even if it was a voluntary act performed by the victim.
However Finley was overruled by Kennedy where the courts stated that the chain of causation is
broken is the drugs are supplied to an informed person who injects it voluntarily. Moreover if the
supplier saw the victim loosing consciousness and omits to perform any reasonable action will be
held liable (Evans)
Now we will be talking about the circumstances and situations where the chain of causation will
break. In order to break the chain of causation the act should be independent, sufficient on its
own to cause harm and voluntary. In the case of People V Elder, although D was the factual
cause of the death, the independent and voluntary act of B broke the chain of causation as it more
overpowering. In a more recent case of Rafferty, the defendant was not convicted as the final act
of drowning the victim was a new and intervening act in the chain of events and was
fundamentally different to what the appellant had contemplated. In both these case because the
acts were independent and more overpowering that the initial injury the chain of causation was
broken.
 Acts of the victim will break the chain of causation where they are ‘daft’ or so unexpected that
‘no reasonable man could be expected to foresee. This approach was also adopted in Williams
and Davies (1992) where it was stated that the chain of causation will only be broken if Vs act
isn’t within the range of reasonably foreseeable response. The Court of Appeal confirmed that
the subjective characteristics of the accused may be taken into account in the case of Marjoram
[2000].Generally committing suicide due to someone’s act doesn’t break the chain of causation
however the case of Dhaliwal can be seen as an exception as it was held that suicide could be
triggered by the most recent unlawful attack.
In conclusion, in all result crime cases, establishing causation is a crucial step. I believe that the
laws set out for the chain of causation are fair and consistent to a greater extent as the courts
rarely and after strong circumstantial evidence stated that the chain has been broken. All the
requirements of law have to be fulfilled. Previously there had been some inconsistencies with
regard to intervening events especially medical treatment but with passing time and new case
laws emerging I believe law has been made clearer. If on the slightest mistakes medical
professionals will be held liable, it would be a discouraging factor and as stated in the case of Dr
Suresh Gupta V NCT Delhi that bonafide medical practioners will not be able to save lives if
they were to tremble with the fear of criminal prosecution. Hence the rule of “palpably wrong”
which was reinforced by Lord Denning in the case of Roe V Minister of Health has made the law
quite clear