Causation Cases

Question 1

R v Jordan [1956] (English CCA)

Answer 1

Hallett J:
- General principle with normal medical treatment
- Stab wounded mainly healed at TOD
- Two errors = Distinctive feature

Question 2

R v Smith [1959] (Courts-Martial Appeals Court)

Answer 2

Lord Parker CJ:
- Operating cause and substantial cause
- Distinguished R v Jordan

Question 3

R v Cheshire [1991] (English CCA)

Answer 3

• Beldam LJ:
• Robert Goff LJ in R v Pagett – “act was so independent of the act of the accused that it should be regarded in law as the cause of the victim’s death, to the exclusion of the act of the accused
• Hart and Honore – “Treatment which falls short of the standard expected of the competent medical practitioner is unfortunately only too frequent in human experience for it to be considered abnormal in the sense of extraordinary”
• “Acts or omissions of a doctor treating the victim for injuries he has received at the hands of a defendant may conceivably be so extraordinary as to be capable of being regarded as acts independent of the conduct of the defendant but it is most unlikely that they will be”
• R v Malcherek – Turning off life support does not change the cause of death Lord Lane CJ – Prefer Smith over Jordan – “Medical treatment given by careful and skilled medical practitioners will not exonerate the original assailant from responsibility for the death.”
• R v Evans and Gardiner – Similar facts – Stabbing and bowel stricture – SC of Victoria – “Operating and substantial cause of death” (Same as R v Smith) – Act can’t have caused death but bowel blockage caused by stabbing so not an NAI
• “Extraordinary and unusual case – Act “so independent”
  “Defendant’s acts need not be the sole cause or even the main cause of death it being sufficient that his acts contributed significantly to that result”

Question 4

DPP v Davis [2000] (CCA)

Answer 4

Hardiman J:
- Causation test = More than minimal contribution to the death test
- Present case = Heart failure COD secondary to the severe shock caused by the injuries and the severe pain associated with them

Question 5

DPP v Dunne [2013] (CCA)

Answer 5

O’Donnell J:
- Had died at scene of shooting - Appellant would have been guilty of murder
- Davis - “More than a minimal contribution” test; Applies whenever it is alleged that a victim’s injuries or death were not caused by the wrongful acts of the accused; the test for causation in this jurisdiction is whether the injuries caused by an accused related to the death in more than a minimal way.” ; Decisions lawful and proper so chain not broken

Question 6

Dunne v DPP [2016] (SC)

Answer 6

O’Malley J:
- Causation Test - Charleton et Al, Wong Tat Chuen, Smithers, Endorses Davis test
- Novus Actus Interveniens Principles:
i) Jordan, Smith, Blaue
ii) LS withdrawal where brain death - Still original injury where operational COD (R v Malcherek and R v Steel)
iii) CR Life with withdrawal of invasive medical treatment (Re a Ward of Court), Let nature take its course/non-curative effect - Still OI unless true NAI
iv) Something that is so independent of the act of the accused that it should be regarded in law as the cause of death. Immediate COD is a reasonable and lawful act of a third party not NAI (R v Pagett)

• Current case = Life being prolonged part of the appropriate medical treatment available, possibly for a long time until lawful and ethical decision to prolong life no further; Accused brought about situation where accused required medical treatment; Victim’s susceptibility to infection due to brain/body damage caused by assault so “a substantial and operational cause of death”; Not embarking on a particular treatment rather than withdrawing treatment but proper decision in the best interests of Mr Kenny

Question 7

R v Blaue [1975] (English CCA)

Answer 7

Lawton LJ:
- Reasonable by whose standards including jury?
- Take your victim “the whole man” as you find them
- Stab wound = COD
- Chain not broken even where the victim choose to not stop this end coming about

Question 8

R v Roberts [1971] (English CCA)

Answer 8

Stephenson LJ:
- Lewis – Jumping from window
- Beech – Act of jumping natural consequence of conduct (Darling J)
- Test – Natural result of assailant’s actions and RF and daft qualification

Question 9

R v Williams & Davis [1991] (English CCA)

Answer 9

Stuart-Smith LJ:
- Evans – Wife jumped from window to avoid further violence by husband believing endanger her life, husband answerable to consequences of fall
- Roberts – Stephenson LJ’s test – Victim response RF or daft?
- Mackie – Stephenson LJ – Not fatal cases = Escape must be a natural consequence of the assault charged, reasonable action; Fatal cases – Escape as natural consequence of unlawful act 2. Reasonable person would think that the act subjects the individual to risk of consequential harm, albeit not serious harm
- Fatal case – Two requirements – 1. Reasonable and foreseeable act 2. Physical harm reasonably recognizable e.g. Dawson
- Conduct proportionate to threat but victim may do the wrong thing in the moment
- Current case – Violence may not occur in robbery if item handed over and judge’s direction on causation

Question 10

R v Harvey [2010] (English CCA)

Answer 10

• Mrs Justice Rafferty
• R v Furby – Death of victim from assault which caused hemorrhage – Sentence reflect consequence
• Extent of vulnerability – Victim could have died at any moment by turning her head

Question 11

DPP v O’Loughlin [2021] (CoA)

Answer 11

Isobel Kennedy J:
- Ingredients of murder a) a killing b) killing = unlawful; c) accused person caused killing d) accused intended to kill or seriously injury someone
- Manslaughter ingredients = a, b, c
- Causation = Objective assessment, finding of fact for a jury
- Davis test, Joel test for manslaughter, Dunne cases – Davis test applies
- O’Malley J “emphasises the natural consequences approach to causation and does not consider foreseeability as a relevant test”
- Charleton and McDermott’s Criminal Law and Evidence – But for idea, accused’s actions must be substantial/not minimal and operating cause; even if bad choices, if not substantial cause, then not liable
- Same authors – Chain of causation not broken if natural consequence; break if “a supervening and unconnected event”
- Questionable statement – “however, an intervening act is an act which occurs after the actions of the accused person. In the present case, no act on the part of any third party intervened so as to operate as a novus actus interveniens, thus relieving the appellant of criminal responsibility