Clause 17 of Draft Criminal Code Bill 1989- there is a two-part test for causation

 How casual consequence begin

 How the casual consequence may come to an end
To be held accountable for a consequence they must be both factual cause and legal cause

Factual causation
Hart an Honore- “an event or act which ‘makes the difference’ between something happening
and something not happening” [Causation and the law 1959]
Act- factual cause would not have happened if not for the act (White 1910)
Omission- factual would not have happened but for the defendant’s failure to act (Morby 1882)
White 1910- D was not factual cause of his mother’s death as the heart attack would have
happened irrespective of D poisoning her drink. D would not be liable even if his mother had the
drink but the poison did not start working. D would have been liable if the poison initiated the
heart attack.
Morby 1882- high court quashed the conviction of manslaughter and held that father’s omission
may have caused the death but the evidence cannot prove that.
Dyson 1908- father was the factual cause as his actions accelerated the child’s death by
meningitis, which he had caused in a previous beating
Adams 1957- Acquitted of murder. Since a doctor has the right to take certain measures to
relieve the suffering of his patient, although it may shorten their lives (doctrine of double effect)
Moor 2000- Dr. Moor was acquitted since his administration of dopamine was to relieve pain
and not to kill the patient.
Michell 1983- D punched a man who fell on an old woman and she was killed, the appeal court
found him that, if not for his act the woman would have lived and that it was more than
negligible.

Legal Cause
The factual cause will also be the legal cause unless the casual cause is inconsequential that it
does not contribute to the act. [Model Penal Code s. 2.03(2)(b)]
The legal cause is sometimes called the ‘assignable’, ‘attributable’, ‘proximate’, ‘imputable’ or
blameable.
Cato 1976- D has to be the substantial cause
Mitchell 1983 and Pagett 1983- cause of death of a third party, their actions were substantial
cause.

Principle of application:
Dalloway 1847- he would not have been able to stop the cart even if he was holding the reins.
He is the factual cause of death but not the blameable cause of death
Adams 1957- if the administration of medicine was for pain relief then the real cause of death is
the disease
Moor 2000- Dr. Moor was acquitted since his administration of dopamine was to relieve pain
and not to kill the patient.
Benge 1865- forgot to check the train timetable to ensure safety of the men working in the line.
D’s contribution was substantial attribution for the working men’s death as it is too substantial to
be ignored.
McKenchnie 1992- the cause of death was the D’s fault as the doctor’s decision to not operate
was D’s act that made the V unconscious

Mental and Physical vulnerability of V

Hayward 1908- D chased his wife, V with a hammer, V had a weak heart, had a heart attack and
died. D was nor acquitted, although he did no know of the V’s weak heart the principle of ‘egg-
shell rule’ applied and V’s physical vulnerability did not break the chain of causation
Holland 1841- V refused amputation and died of tetanus poisoning after D cut his finger. V’s
refusal to medical help did not break the chain of causation.
Blaue 1975- V refused blood transfusion after she was stabbed, as she was practicing Jehovah’s
witness. The wound caused by D was still the operative cause of death and D has to accept the
victim as he finds them.
Dhaliwal 2006 (suicide)- where the reason for the suicide is the culmination of years of abuse
then the lase abue plays a vital role in the cause
R v Wallace 2018 (assisted suicide/ Euthanasia)- despite the time lapse between the acid attack
and the Euthanasia, D’s initial attack was the direct cause V sought euthanasia
Medical intervention
The act of the doctor has to be so potent the it renders the D’s act insignificant that death is not
caused by the wound
Smith 1959- if during the time of death, the original wound is till the operative and substantial
cause, death is caused by the wound although other factors are operating
Cheshire 1991- although the shot wound was not the operative cause, infection from the
tracheotomy was, it was not insignificant
Jordan 1956- the hospital administered abnormal intravenous liquid, after they found V
extremely allergic to the antibiotic, which cause to V to contact pneumonia and die. The court
held that the stab wound was no linger the substantial or operative cause of death.
Bush v Commonwealth 1880- V died of scarlet fever, that he contacted at the hospital that he
had to go to after the D attacked him. D was not held liable for V’s death.

Act of Victim
Robert 1972- V jumped out of the car after the D sexually assaulted her. The chain of causation
was not broke n as it can be deemed as a foreseeable act
Williams and Davis 1992- D picked up a hitch-hiker, who jumped out of the car killing himself.
The court held that evidence could not show if the action of the V was reasonable and
proportionate to the threat apprehended, and was it foreseeable.
Corbett 1996- D left V at the side of the road, V got up and walked in front of a passing car. D
was convicted as the action of V was foreseeable.
Finlay 2003- the casual cause of the supplier was not broken when the V sel-injected, as it was a
foreseeable event.
Kennedy no.2 2007- V’s act need not be foreseeable, it has to be voluntary. A fee informed
choice to self-inject the drug breaks the chain of causation
Evans 2009- gross negligence manslaughter need not be from duty of familial or professional
care. Following Adomako, when a person creates a dangerous situation that may be life
threatening to other, it becomes their duty to take reasonable steps to save the other’s life

Act of third Party

Pagett 1983- D used his pregnant girlfriend as a shield and shot at police officers and the police
officers shot back in retaliation killing the girlfriend. Self-defence against the act of the
perpetrator does not take away from his criminal liability.
People v Elder 1894- D stuck V and V fell to the ground, then B stepped up kicking V killing
him. Although D was the casual cause of death, B’s independent act broke the chain of
causation.
Rafferty 2007- D along with his co-attacker beat up V and left, however his partner stripped V
naked and drowned him in the sea. Drowning of the V was completely different than the injury D
had caused

Empress Cars- foreseeable voluntary act of third party does not break the chain of causation.