1
Q
R v Dalloway (1847)
A
- D, driver of a horse cart, hits a child whilst driving
- D wasn’t holding onto the reins -> driving negligently -> charged with gnm
- BUT evidence proved that even if he had been holding the reins, he wouldn’t have been able to avoid the child -> V ran out too suddenly and too close to the cart
- Court held that D was not guilty because factual causation was not satisfied
2
Q
R v Broughton [2020]
A
- D and his girlfriend were at a music festival
- V injected herself with drugs that D supplied, but she had a bad reaction and eventually died
- D was convicted of gnm, as he had a duty to call for medical help when he saw she was unwell -> he appealed that his negligence wasn’t proven to have caused death of V
- Court offered summary of elements of gnm:
1. D owed an existing duty of care to V
2. D negligently breached that duty of care
3. At the time of the breach there was a serious and obvious risk of death, and this was reasonably foreseeable. Serious, in this context, qualifies the nature of the risk of death as something much more than minimal or remote. Risk of injury or illness, even serious injury or illness, is not enough. An obvious risk is one that is present, clear, and unambiguous. It is immediately apparent, striking and glaring rather than something that might become apparent on further investigation
4. The breach of the duty caused or made a significant (i.e. more than minimal) contribution to the death of the victim
5. In the view of the jury, the circumstances of the breach were truly exceptionally bad and so reprehensible as to justify the conclusion that it amounted to gross negligence and required criminal sanction - point 4 was the main contentious point here -> medical expert stated she would’ve had 90% chance of surviving if help had been called at the point when D realised there was a serious risk of death
- on the test of factual causation, you need the prosecution to prove that V would’ve lived significantly longer with the intervention
- D was acquitted -> couldn’t say beyond reasonable doubt that she would’ve survived -> 10% chance she would’ve died
- BUT this was in the medical sense -> legally, her surviving a few more hours could be considered a significant length of time -> should’ve left this question to the jury
- BUT Court in this case argued that the question was whether she would’ve survived, not about significant / substantial prolonging
3
Q
Harlot’s case (1560)
A
- a harlot (prostitute) abandoned her child in the forest
- kites attacked it and it died
- she was held liable
4
Q
R v Kennedy [2007]
A
- Both D (drug dealer) and V are regular drug users
- V asks D for some heroin, self-injects, then dies
- D had left by this point
- Lord Bingham says ‘In the case of a fully informed and responsible adult, never.’ -> D should never be found guilty of manslaughter
- it cannot be a case of unlawful act manslaughter, because it was not the unlawful act (supplying the heroin) that led to the death
- the underlying notion is that of individual autonomy and free will
- V made a choice that was free and deliberate and informed
- foundational case in law of causation
5
Q
R v BW [2018]
A
- D threw sulfuric acid on her ex-boyfriend, who then went to Belgium to be euthanised because of this
- Court initially held that the doctor’s action and V’s was a novus actus interveniens (nai) and didn’t let jury decide
- Court of Appeal disagreed and sent the case for retrial -> at retrial, D was acquitted of the murder accusation
- the immediate cause of death was the doctor’s injection, not the acid, which was a free, deliberate and informed action
- Sharpe LJ held there was ‘but for’ causation; but for the acid attack, V wouldn’t have sought euthanasia
- She then argued that the euthanasia was closely linked to the acid attack -> D’s action was a significant and operating cause of death -> nai didn’t apply
- finally, Sharpe LJ stated that it must be considered whether V’s response was reasonably foreseeable
- this case blurred whether the key test for causation is a substantial and operating cause, or whether the death was a reasonably foreseeable consequence
- highlights how important common sense is in questions of causation
6
Q
R v Field [2021]
A
- over 5 years, D befriended V (an old man) who changed his will to leave D a large inheritance
- one night, D brought Dalmane (drug prescribed for insomnia) and alcohol -> V died -> it was unclear whether V took the drug and alcohol himself
- Defence argued that this would be a novus actus interveniens if he had
- it would have definitely been free and deliberate, so the question was whether it was uninformed
- Court argued it was uninformed because V didn’t know that D was plotting his death, and was lulled into a false sense of security, thinking D would care for him -> held D liable
- BUT V did know that drinking alcohol was unsafe for him -> his doctor had told him -> arguably not uninformed
- even if D had been a caring friend, V still put himself in an unsafe situation -> could’ve still died, even if D called for help -> maybe not a very convincing argument of the case
analogy: if you told a weak swimmer that you would watch out for them in water, and they then drowned because you had no intention of helping them, you could be held criminally liable
7
Q
R v Rebelo [2021]
A
- D ran an online business selling a chemical, claiming it helped with weight loss
- it is not licensed and considered dangerous for human consumption -> D was aware of this but still marketed it
- V knew of the dangers (had been warned) but bought 8 pills, took them and died -> she had depression and a personality disorder -> vulnerable to the pills
- Court held that V’s act didn’t break the chain -> Court focused on whether V had been fully informed about taking the pills
- seems more correct to state that she wasn’t fully free -> she had told her friends that she couldn’t control herself
- D convicted of gnm
8
Q
R v Roberts (1972)
A
- D offered V a lift from a party
- He tried making sexual advances towards her and she jumped out of the vehicle, sustaining injuries
- D was convicted of actual bodily harm
- in order for V’s action to not break the chain, it must be a natural consequence of D’s action -> if V’s action is so unexpected that it could not be foreseen by a reasonable person, then it breaks the chain
9
Q
R v Dhaliwal [2006]
A
- D harrassed his wife repeatedly until she committed suicide
- court held that in principle, if D inflicts physical and/or psychological abuse on V and thereby causes her some kind of recognised psychiatric illness (ie injury amounting in law to actual or grievous bodily harm for the purposes of the Offences Against th Person Act 1861, s 47 or s 20) his conduct may give rise to liability for manslaughter (ie constructive manslaughter) should V to commit suicide
- in this case, prosecution couldn’t prove that V had suffered psychiatric injury -> mere psychological harm is not enough
10
Q
R v Pagett (1983)
A
- D (31) got V (16) pregnant, V wanted to end the relationship
- D took V hostage, and after a shootout with the police, V was unfortunately killed
- D appealed on the conviction of manslaughter because he said that police killed her
- Court highlighted that D’s action only needed to have been a substantial cause of the death
- Court held that the police’s action was not a novus actus interveniens, because it was ‘a reasonable act performed for the purpose of self-preservation, and an act done in performance of a legal duty’ -> these are not considered nai
11
Q
R v A (2020)
A
- A (designated driver) and 3 friends driving back from the club
- A pulled over without lights on the hard shoulder when an argument broke out in the car -> L fell asleep at his wheel and his lorry swerved and hit the parked car, killing one of the passengers
- Judge initially found that A was not liable
- Court of Appeal stated that it was reasonably foreseeable that an accident of some kind could occur, and so the case should be retrialled
- There are 2 ways to break the chain
1. a free, voluntary and informed decision (L was asleep - not voluntary)
2. a reasonably foreseeable action (an accident could occur) - If the outcome was foreseeable, even if the precise means to reach that outcome is not, the defendant should be held to account
- an issue not explored by the courts is that A’s unlawful act was dangerous driving because the hazard lights were not on -> but this wouldn’t have changed anything because L was asleep at the wheel
12
Q
R v Jordan (1956)
A
- D stabbed V, who died in hospital 8 days later
- D was initially convicted of murder
- A doctor came forward to state that he believed cause of death was gross negligence
- V was intolerant to an antibiotic -> this was noted and initially stopped, before being continued by another doctor the next day
- doctors also introduced abnormal amounts of fluid which waterlogged V’s lungs
- conviction was quashed
13
Q
R v Cheshire [1991]
A
- D shot V, who was taken to a hospital and had surgery
- a tube was inserted into his windpipe due to his respiratory problems
- 2 months later, V complained of breathing problems and died
- windpipe had been obstructed by the tube -> the medical cause of death was cardio-respiratory arrest which was caused by a condition that had resulted from the creation of an artificial airway, which had been necessitated by the gunshot wounds
- D argued that the medical team should’ve intervened to save V
- Court held that
1. D’s action only needed to be a substantial and operating cause, not the sole or main cause
2. even if the negligent medical treatment led to V’s death, D’s action would still be a cause unless the negligent treatment was GROSSly negligent - Beldam LJ stated that, ‘treatment which falls short of the standard expected of the competent medical practitioner is unfortunately only too frequent in human experience’
14
Q
R v Blaue [1975]
A
- D went to V’s house and asked for sex -> she refused -> he stabbed her 4 times, and perforated her lung
- she was taken to hospital -> stated that she needed a blood transfusion -> BUT she refused, this was against her beliefs as a Jehovah’s witness
- if she had the transfusion, she would’ve been saved
- Defence stated that (1) the unreasonable action of V should break the chain and (2) the judge should’ve left causation to the jury
- CoA responded that (1) reasonable by whose standards? and (2) D must take V as they find them
leading case for the ‘thin skull’ principle
15
Q
R v Hayward (1908)
A
- D chased V (his wife) onto the streets shouting at her
- both of them didn’t know she had a heart condition, and due to the exhaustion and fright, she collapsed and died
- D tried to argue that her medical condition broke the chain
- Court argued that the ‘thin skull’ principle applied here -> you take the victim as you find them
16
Q
R v Hughes [2013]
A
- D, a driver with a provisional license and no insurance policy, was involved in a vehicle collision with V, who later died
- V was entirely responsible for the accident
- D was charged with causing death by driving whilst unlicensed and uninsured under s3ZB Road Traffic Act 1988
- Supreme Court held that D’s action needed to have legally caused the death (been a substantial and operating cause)
- highlights importance of legal causation and distinction with factual causation
Law cases - Criminal
flashcards
Decks in class (13)
# Cards
