Zoom-CRIMINAL Law-UoL

Review Chapter 4 Actus Reus:

Cause & Result
Result Crime

A/R → CAUSE → RESULT

↑
Prove that this guy leads to ↑ this guy
(bleeding from A/R, not from cutting while cooking)

Activity 4.1
In each of the above cases the defendant (D) may wish to claim that although they did wrong they
should not be held accountable for the harm that transpired because it is too far removed from
D’s initial act or omission.

In which of the cases do you agree that D should not be held accountable and in which do you
think D should?

-legal cause: remote- far away from D's original factual cause, then D is not liable

-near to D's factual cause, then D is liable-- because the causes are related, significant, substantial-- D is
liable

Is there any pattern to your conclusions which could form the basis for general principles of
application?

-yes

a. D, as a joke, places a wet bar of soap on the floor of V’s bathroom, hoping that V will slip on the
soap. V does slip on the soap, hits her head on the floor and is knocked unconscious. Does D
cause V’s injury?
-D as a joke: voluntary, A/R no; yes--start cause factual cause
-Places soap on floor: factual cause
-Hpe V slips: no intention other than joke if no A/R; if there is A/R, then he hopes V falls to result in harm
-V slips: factual cause
-hits her head on floor and knocked out: result, legal cause: close, not remote, within the chain of cause
-D cause V's injury: yes
b. As above except that V dies because her skull was unusually thin. Does D cause V’s death?
-V dies: result (criminal harm); BUT FOR - V could have lived longer but because D did the soap thing, V
slips , dies sooner than V would wish; "thin skull principle"
-D is liable because he accelerated her death

c. D rapes V. So distressed is V that she commits suicide. Does D cause V’s death?
-D rapes V: A/R, cause, result-- starts chain of cause--- rape is the factual cause--voluntary rape V
-V commits suicide: D didn't kill her, but D accelerated her death by raping her causing her distress, and
decided to kill herself --result (criminal harm from rape)
-legal cause of her death--- not remote, very close to D's action; liable --R v Williams
-if argue D is not liable: ---As per R v Dhaliwal-- unforeseeable

d. D rapes V. When V’s father finds out he kills V due to the dishonour caused to the family by V’s
loss of virginity. Does D cause V’s death?
-D rapes V= A/R, cause, result- factual cause- voluntary
-Father: A/R, relevant to D, not remote (legal cause), ties to D though it's a new chain of cause
-Factual cause if D
-D liable: yes
e. D stabs V. An ambulance is called to take V to hospital. On the journey to hospital the
ambulance is involved in an accident which kills the driver, X, and V. Does D cause V’s death?
-D stabs V- A/R, factual cause, BUT FOR test is satisfied
-Ambulance takes V to hospital, ambulance gets into accident: breaks the chain of D stabbing V.
-BUT FOR test: would the ambulance get into accident anyways without carrying V in it? yes
-D is not liable

f. D is the lifeguard on a beach. She sees V struggling in the water and dives in to save him.
Unfortunately D is not a good swimmer and is unable to rescue V in time. Does D cause V’s
death?
-Lifeguard: strict liability, contract , mandatory to save swimmers
-She dives to save: she did her job
-Unable to save because she can't swim: commission by omission; involuntary, tried her best but failed --
still doing her job, but not good at it
-Manslaughter

g. D stabs V. An ambulance is called to take V to hospital. The ambulance crew are on their lunch
break and refuse to come until it has ended. By the time they arrive, V has died of blood loss.
Does D cause V’s death?
-Ambulance crew: strict liability to save; failed to -- omission
-V died from blood loss-- result (criminal harm), within the chain cause,
-D liable

h. D and V attend a party together. D gives V an ecstasy pill which V takes. Unknown to both D
and V the pill has unusual strength. V falls unconscious and dies almost immediately. Does D
cause V’s death?

-attend party: voluntary, nothing

-D gives V pill: voluntary, V takes voluntary-- swallowing factual cause

-Pill has unusual strength: factual cause-- unknown, cause starts

-V falls unconscious and dies: result (criminal harm), legal cause: near D-- within chain of cause

-D liable: BUT FOR test--- D is liable for not knowing about the pill but he is not liable for her taking pill
and died
Accountability: basic guidelines
● A person‘s voluntary act initiates a causal sequence which ends in harm, that person will
normally be held accountable

unless an act or event later transpires which renders a finding of accountability inappropriate

Case (a) in Activity 4.1

a. D, as a joke, places a wet bar of soap on the floor of V’s bathroom, hoping that V will slip on the
soap. V does slip
on the soap, hits her head on the floor and is knocked unconscious. Does D cause V’s injury?

D’s act is voluntary in the sense of being under the physical and mental control of D.

D’s act is the first link in a chain of events (chain of causation) which results in V’s injury.

D is therefore accountable for that injury unless a later act or event occurs which renders a finding of
accountability inappropriate

The later act or event is V slipping over and banging her head.

Does this act or event render it inappropriate to hold D to account for V’s injury?

-appropriate

Key clues:

D is accountable for all the consequences of their wrongful act.

D is accountable for all the foreseeable consequences of their wrongful act.

D is accountable for all the foreseen consequences of their wrongful act.

Draft Criminal Code Bill 1989, clause 17 :

How Cause begins

1. …a person causes a result which is an element of an offence when –

a. he does an act which makes a more than negligible contribution to its occurrence;
or
b. he omits to do an act which might prevent its occurrence and which he is under a duty to do
according to the law relating to the offence.

● D did an act -- (placed soap on the floor-- a factual cause)

How Cause ends (break the chain)

2. A person does not cause a result where, after he does such an act or makes such an omission, an
act or event occurs –
a. which is the immediate and sufficient cause of the result;
b. which he did not foresee, and
c. which could not in the circumstances reasonably have been foreseen.
 ● Cause-- (V slipping over and banging her head)

● Result -- (V’s loss consciousness)

*A foreseen circumstance

*So D is accountable for the result

D be held accountable for a consequence involves being both the factual cause and also the legal
cause of that consequence.

Case (h) in Activity 4.1

h. D and V attend a party together. D gives V an ecstasy pill which V takes. Unknown to both D
and V the pill has unusual strength. V falls unconscious and dies almost immediately. Does D
cause V’s death?

● In law, D is not the cause of V’s death because although D began the chain and V’s taking the pill
was foreseen and foreseeable, V’s voluntary taking of the pill breaks the chain of causation. It is
now V’s (voluntary) act rather than D’s which causes V’s death.

4.3.1 Factual cause

An event or act that produces a result

● an act that causes a result

or

● no act (omission) ALSO cause result

● sometimes:

-an act (factual cause) doesn't cause direct result of death --poison mom but mom died of heart
attack
White [1910] 2 KB 124). Morby (1882)

● no act (omission), D doesn't cause direct result of death --- beats child but child dies of menigitis
Dyson [1908] 2 KB 454

● BUT FOR starting the factual act (commission or omission) produce a cause, and then produce a
chain of causes, that
 accelerates the result (V wouldn't have died so young but because D commit or omit a factual
act, V died sooner than expected) = criminal liability

● acceleration is a catalyst = doesn't matter if that acceleration happens at beginning of act, middle
chain of act, or ending

chain of act, then reaches result = D is liable for creating that acceleration--- making harm come
faster than it should

Activity 4.2
This question of how much acceleration needs to be established is a particular problem attached
to cases of euthanasia.

There have been a number of high-profile cases in which doctors have been prosecuted for
murder where they have ‘eased the passing’ of a terminally ill patient.

Examples are Adams [1957] Crim LR 365 and Moor. For interesting commentaries see Arlidge, A.
‘The trial of Dr David Moor’

(2000) Crim LR 31, Smith, J.C. ‘A comment on Moor’s Case’ (2000) Crim LR 41 and Goss, J. ‘A
postscript to the trial
of Dr David Moor’ (2000) Crim LR 568.

● Now read Wilson, Section 5.5.B.1 ‘The general framework for imputing cause’ and explain
why Dr Adams was not thought to have caused the death of his patient and what change
in the facts of the case would have been necessary for the court to have reached a
contrary conclusion.

Mitchell [1983] 2 All ER 427

● Factual cause of a criminal harm, the causal connection does not have to be direct

-The accused (D) punched a man who had accused him of queue-jumping in a post office.

-The man fell on top of an 89-year-old woman, which initially broke her leg and consequently caused her
death from a pulmonary
embolism.

-D appealed. Appeal rejected. Conviction of manslaughter.

-He was a BUT FOR cause (V died sooner than she wished because of D's factual act- starting the chain
of causes)

-In the words of the Draft Criminal Code, he did an act which made ‘a more than negligible contribution’ to
the consequence’s occurrence.

4.3.2 Legal cause

● Draft Criminal Code- a factual cause will be too remote if, subsequent to it, another act or event
 occurs which also contributed to the result which was not foreseen by the defendant, and could

not in the circumstances reasonably have been foreseen.

● Meaning: My theorized Example -

Event a)-- starts action of a crime (actus reus) -D stabs woman

Event b)-- follows -woman bleeds

Event c)-- follows -woman dies then falls on cat, cat dies

Event f)--follows- cat falls out window, falls on kid, kid dies

Event g)-- kid's body gets blown by tornado, hits old lady in the head, old lady dies

*D is too far from the death of old lady in event g); too remote, too distant to be liable

*unforeseen because tornado is unpredictable in event g)

*it would be unreasonable to make D responsible for a tornado blowing kid's body that hit old lady

*event c) cat dies -- cat is insignificant compare to human deaths to make D responsible for cat

*window broke in event f)-- insignificant compare to human deaths

Principles of application

Legal cause of a criminal harm = starts with a wrongful act (A/R)-- factual harm

Activity 4.3
Read Wilson, Section 5.5.B ‘Legal cause’ and answer the following questions.

● The defendant’s contribution to the result must be substantial, does not need to be the sole
cause

● Even without a result, but if D's act is significant then we need to consider it or consider the
range of acts that are significant

● The criminal law ignores trivial causes

Example: Trivial causes

Adams (1957)

-A doctor gave his terminally ill patient a dose of painkillers so strong that it killed the patient
 -Judge ruled- patient died from disease

-Doctor innocent-- doctor only did his job by giving medicine for pain relief from disease- pain relief to
prolong life, not kill

-Doctor's act of prescribing medicine is an insignificant act

-(Disease is the convict, so disease goes to jail)

Example: Significant cause

Benge (1865) 4 F & F 504

a. Why was the defendant in Dalloway (1847) not guilty of manslaughter, although he was driving
his cart very
dangerously when it ran over the child?
-Man in cart without hands on rein: A/R no
-Kid runs in front of his cart and dies: factual cause of kid in front of cart; result - died; legal cause: not
remote, close to D
-BUT FOR test:
1. would the cart keep moving if D put hands on rein? yes the cart still goes
2.would the kid be killed if it didn't run in front of the cart? yes kid can die from being on the sidewalk
3. kid die -- result
-because there is a doubt - not beyond a reasonable doubt, D charged with manslaughter

b. A points a gun at B and threatens to kill B. C sees this. C, in trying to disarm A, causes the gun
to fire and injure

V, a bystander. Is C the legal cause of V’s harm?

-A points gun at B-- factual cause, A/R, M/R, cause threat

-C sees this and tries to disarm A-- cause continuing, struggle to disarm
-while C tries to save, gun shoots, V dies by accident-- result (harm cause)

-C is not liable -- involuntary, unforeseeable/unpredictable

-therefore A is liable; indirectly case Mitchell (1983) -- commission pulling gun

4.3.4 Death precipitated by the victim’s vulnerable physical or mental condition

● Victim’s death is triggered by a combination of the defendant’s unlawful act and their own
physical or mental vulnerability

● For example, in Hayward (1908) 21 Cox CC 692 D

‘Eggshell Skull Rule’

Activity 4.4
Read Wilson, Section 5.6.A ‘Subsisting conditions’ -- (injuries, fractures, sicknesses etc...--conditions
that happened before and still carry on until now) and answer the following questions.

a. Why was Blaue the cause of V’s death when V could have easily prevented it by agreeing to a
blood transfusion?
-V's decision-- voluntary, independent
-religious belief
-still within chain of cause, therefore D is still liable

b. Eve asks Adam, her husband, to shoot her because she is terminally ill and wishes to die.

Adam does so out of compassion and respect for her wishes.

However, his shot fails to kill her but causes massive internal bleeding.

Adam then realises that he does not want to be responsible for Eve’s death so he takes her to
hospital.

The hospital tells Eve that she needs a blood transfusion and that she will die without it.

Eve refuses, as she still wants to die – which she does.

● Is Adam the legal cause of her death?

-not remote but very close link, close ties

-BUT FOR test-- accelerate death of wife
-Bland, White, Dyson 1908-- Menigitis
-D is liable

● Is there any significant difference between this case and Blaue that distinguishes Blaue ?

-the same case, same scenario

● Please note here that there is no right answer.

● Questions about whether the factual cause of a criminal harm is also the cause recognised
by the law is a matter of moral and common-sense judgement

Activity 4.5
Memorise the statement of principle in Smith!
-Consider autopsy report--- in the case- cause of death
 Activity 4.6
Read Wilson, Section 5.6 .A 4.c ‘When will inappropriate medical treatment break the chain of
causation?’
-when it's extremely negligent of hospital not doing their job
-Kane, Jordan
-D gets off, D is not liable but the doctors are liable-- chain of causation breaks

If the doctors had given the victim in Smith a huge overdose of painkillers by mistake, which
would have killed any patient irrespective of their condition, would this prevent the initial wound
from being the ‘substantial and operative cause’ of V’s death?
-no because Adam 1957--conviction: overdose patient, doc found not guilty

Activity 4.7
● Consider the case of Pagett and answer the following questions. Remember, there are no
right answers to
these questions.
● They are simply some of the considerations the court will have in mind in deciding
whether to attribute
cause to the defendant when their causal contribution is not obvious.

● Hint: In each case, ask yourself whether D’s act was a substantial and operative cause of
death; whether

the police response was reasonable; whether the police response was foreseeable;
whether the police

response was made more likely by D’s action? In principle, a ‘yes’ to any one of these
questions might

support D’s conviction. Which question(s) do you think the court should ask?

a. Do you think the police’s reaction was reasonable? Do you think the real issue should be
whether the police response was ‘foreseeable’?
-Police: -because he was under legal duty to shoot, and out of self-defence therefore, it was reasonable
for the police
-police no choice, D shot first; foreseeable
-human shield gf- police shot gf
-D liable?
-but for the D using human shield- then she would not have been shot
-but for the police shooting -gf would not have died
-D liable

b. If D had simply waved the gun in the air and the police had opened fire, with the same result,
would D still be the cause of V’s death?
-police would open fire- D would still be liable

c. What principle would you adopt to support your answer to question (b) above?

---see a above---
 Activity 4.8
● Read Wilson, Section 5.6.3(d) ‘Medical responses to the danger posed by A’s conduct’
● Section 5.6.4(c) ‘When will inappropriate medical treatment break the chain of causation?’

a. What was the response of the Court of Appeal to the appeal in Cheshire? What principle did the
Court lay down in reaching its decision? This is another principle that is worth committing to
memory.
-1991 D shot man and man sent to hospital
-in hospital develop breathing difficulties
-negligence on doc- liable for operation--- because of intervention of operation that is unrelated to D's
initial cause
-breathing worsen, patient died 6 wks later
-substantial cause of D
-factual and legal cause were D's
-D liable
-both jailed
-D gets more punishment than doctor

b. Cheshire was quite an extreme case of bad medical treatment yet D remained liable. In what
situations will bad medical treatment rid D’s criminal act of ‘causal potency’?
-R v Jordan
-natural disaster
-malpractice of doctor-- operating/curing for something completely irrelevant -- Doc's fault is palpable

c. Consider the court’s decision in Jordan. Is it consistent with Cheshire? If not, which do you
prefer and why?

--see above----- 4.6

Activity 4.9
● There are three different tests of causation used in Roberts and Williams and Davis. Two
are used in one case!

● Do all these tests mean the same thing or might the tests elicit different answers? Think of
some situations which might.

a. One says that the chain of causation is not broken unless V does something which was not
reasonably foreseeable.
-chain is still chained
-not broken
-D is still within the chain of liability

b. Another says the chain of causation is not broken unless V does something ‘daft’.
-if V does something daft/dumb... yes.
-chain is broken -- V is voluntary, V complied

c. The final test says that the chain of causation is not broken unless V’s response was ‘not within
the range of responses which might be expected from a victim placed in his situation’.
-see above b.

Activity 4.10
Is the principle enunciated in Dhaliwal the same as rendered Blaue liable for his victim’s
unforeseen decision to refuse a blood transfusion?
-D is liable

Activity 4.11
● Read Wilson, Section 5.6.A 4 (c) ‘When will inapproriate medical treatment break the chain
of causation?’.

What were the special features in Jordan which prompted the court to hold that the chain of
causation had been broken?
-extreme gross negligence from doctors/hospital
-breaks chain, D gets off the hook, Docs now start a new chain and doctors are liable

What was the test used? If that same test had been used in Cheshire would the outcome
have been any different?
-D shot V in stomach and thigh,
-V went to hospital
-Tracheotomy was performed by doctor
-doctor's negligence

When will a subsequent act or event break the chain of causation? This depends upon
whether the intervening event is an act or a natural occurrence.
-natural disaster
-gross negligence from doctors
-suicide
-escape cases-- R v Robert
-act of V------ R v Dhaliwal ----yes, no
-act of D------
-R v William & Davis

Activity 4.12
● Read Wilson, Section 5.6.A 4 (c) ‘When will inappropriate medical treatment break the
chain of causation?’.
-When its palpably wrong
-As per R v smith

Under what circumstances might very bad medical treatment break the chain of
causation?
-when it's doctors misdiagnose
-R v Jordan --- see above

Activity 4.13
● Read Wilson, Section 5.6.A.4 ‘Breaking the chain of causation…’ and answer the following
questions.

a. Is there one test of causation or are there a number of different tests depending upon the facts
of the case?

-number of different test, depending upon case

 -BUT FOR test
-foreseeable

b. Do you think Kennedy (No 2) is rightly decided?

-yes, conviction was right

c. Consider the Environment Agency v Empress Cars case. Is it consistent with Kennedy? Do you
agree with the decision?
-agree

d. Compare Rafferty with Maybin. Which decision do you prefer, and why?
-Conviction of Rafferty--
-drowning breaks old chain of robbery, and spot light is now on the new event of drowning, so court
allowed appeal
-The defendant could not be a principal party to the killing (at most, only a secondary one). He believed
that, following his departure, his co-defendants would continue with acts that would cause no more than
some harm. Accordingly, he could not have been held a party to the deliberate drowning of the victim.
The Court quashed his conviction.

-Conviction of Maybin
- Two brothers attack victim and knock him unconscious. A bar "bouncer" arrives within seconds and
strikes the unconscious victim in the head. Medical evidence inconclusive about which blows caused
death. Trial judge acquits of manslaughter. Court of Appeal reverse the acquittal, and order a re-trial;
upheld by the Supreme Court. Held that appellants’ assaults were factually a contributing cause of death:
“but for” their actions, the victim would not have died.

e. Was the deceased’s suicide in Wallace, above, a voluntary decision in the sense intended in
Kennedy?

-It was about the D put sulphuric acid on V

-V went for euthanasia
-In Berlin
-Where it was allowed
-The substantial cause was D
-D is liable

Am I ready to move on?

Are you ready to move on to the next chapter? You are if – without referring to the module guide or
Wilson – you can answer the following questions.
1. State the general rule of thumb governing causation.
-Causation:
-A/R crime/wrongdoing/voluntary happened and starts series of events: within each event, there is a
cause
-each cause leads to result--
-a cause: factual and legal cause
-factual: start of a cause
-legal: cause and result-- that is significant, substantial, relevant and ties closely to D's A/R

2. Give a verbatim account of the test for causation in either the Draft Criminal Code or Smith.
-You can say that if the second act is overwhelming
-That original wound become part of history
-Then death doesn’t flow from original wound
-Rafferty--- D is not liable, but 3rd party
opposite
-R v Maybin- D is liable, but 3rd party is not

3. Explain how chains of causation come to an end.

-breaks causation:
-suicide, V's action, D's action, natural disaster, etc see above--

4. Explain the ‘Eggshell Skull Rule’ and give one example.

-pre-existing condition, inherently within the person/V
-fragile-- it can occur, erupt, happen anytime, by anything/anybody triggering it
-physical defect, innate incapacity

5. Explain why in Pagett, although it was police rather than D who shot V dead, it was D who was
the legal cause of her death.
-self-defence: police basis
-Because self preservation and person under legal duty is not liable
-As under legal duty doesn’t mean voluntary action
-It won’t be a murder
-As no intention there
-human shield--- V so D is liable

6. Give three examples of cases in which the court’s conclusion was that, although a later act or
event had influence on the result, the initial wrongdoer was still accountable.
-Blaue
-Wallace
-Dyson

7. Give three examples of cases in which the court’s conclusion was that, due to the intervention
of a later act or event, the initial wrongdoer was no longer accountable.
-Jordan
-Rafferty
-Kane
-William & Davis

8. Explain the meaning of ‘operative’ in the phrase ‘substantial and operative’.

-synonymous--the same definition
-textbook not distinguish

9. Explain the meaning of ‘substantial’ in the phrase ‘substantial and operative’.

-Operative: something working, or putting work into something (factual cause)

-a subsisting wound, a wound is still working/injuring over time and not healed

-Substantial: Significant, relevant (legal cause)

- As Novus actus changes the operative cause

-Cheshire and Smith are good cases to understand

--------------------------------
Side notes:
● Intervention of 3rd Party to break chain of cause

● requires all 3 elements of:

-needs to volunteer/voluntary
-separate from the initial/starting act
-sufficient cause that create sufficient harm to the victim

● Doctor liable if:

-palpably wrong-- transparent mistake, clear fault
-kill = liable
-save patient-- prolong life= no liable