Actus Reus - Causation Elements of Criminal Liability
The Law Bank
Elements of Criminal Liability Actus Reus - Causation 1 Actus Reus - Causation Elements of Criminal Liability The Law Bank Objectives Identify the meaning of the term causation
Describe and give examples of the meaning of factual causation
Describe and give examples of the meaning of legal causation 2 Actus Reus - Causation Elements of Criminal Liability The Law Bank Starter Play Omission Showdown. Each team has a set of question cards face down on the table.
I will choose a Showdown Captain
Showdown Captain draws the top card, reads the question and provides thinking time.
Working alone each student including the captain write down their answers on the whiteboards.
When finished teammates signal they are ready
Showdown Captain calls Showdown and teammates show and discuss their answers.
Showdown Captain leads the checking.
Person on the left of the Showdown Captain becomes the Showdown Captain for the next round.
3 Actus Reus - Causation Elements of Criminal Liability The Law Bank Introduction In murder, the defendant causes the death of the victim.
The result or consequence is the death. Therefore, some crimes are referred to as 'result' crimes. In these crimes, the offence specifies to the consequence.
Another example is assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The causing of the harm is the consequence. In order to secure a conviction the prosecutor must prove that the defendant caused the result (caused the consequence). 4 Actus Reus - Causation Elements of Criminal Liability The Law Bank The causation dilemma So you have done an act (or failed to do an act)
But V does something to make the harm worse
Or a third party does something to make the harm worse
Or the medical staff make a mistake which makes the harm worse
Are YOU still liable? 5 Actus Reus - Causation Elements of Criminal Liability The Law Bank In reality an example Connor pushes Rhys off the Empire State Building. Unknown to him, Tehmoor is firing his gun out of the window of a room on the 43 rd floor. As Rhys falls past Tehmoors window one of the bullets hits him, killing him instantly. Dave hits the floor.
Who is legally responsible for his death? 6 Actus Reus - Causation Elements of Criminal Liability The Law Bank Prosecution burden In most cases there will be no issue of causation to consider. The facts will make it obvious. However, where causation has to be proved the prosecution must show that the defendant was both factually and legally culpable for the result or consequence.
7 The Defendants Act Pulling someone so that they fall over
Circumstances Unlawfully (e.g. so that they get hurt) Lawfully (e.g. to avoid being hit by a car)
Consequences A broken arm this is likely to be a crime as the defendant caused the injury A broken arm this is unlikely to be a crime even though the defendant caused the injury.
Actus Reus - Causation Elements of Criminal Liability The Law Bank 8 Defendants act Prohibited Consequence Chain of Causation DIRECT CAUSE Defendant stabs victim through the heart Victim dies Chain of Causation INDIRECT CAUSE Defendant pushes victim Victim dies Chain of Causation Victim falls, hits head and fractures skull Actus Reus - Causation Elements of Criminal Liability The Law Bank 9 Defendants Act Factual Causation Stage 1 The But For Test White [1910] Substantial Cause Cheshire [1991], Jordan (1956) & Smith (1959)
Need not be sole or main cause provided it is A cause Pagett (1983) Legal Causation Stage 2 Prohibited Consequence Actus Reus - Causation Elements of Criminal Liability The Law Bank
R v White (1910)
But for
What is causation? This is the last legal step that is taken to establish Ds legal responsibility for the result.
10 Factual Causation
R v Smith (1959)
Operating & Substantial
Legal Causation + Actus Reus - Causation Elements of Criminal Liability The Law Bank Test yourself 11 Use your understanding so far to decide if James and Paige are liable for the deaths in the scenarios below: Tom has been stabbed forty times. James comes along and pricks the end of his finger with a drawing pin. Tom dies Paige pulls a knife on Sidney who runs down the pavement and hits Rosie. Rosie falls into the road and is hit by a car and dies. But what if . What if Tom had been stabbed by forty people, each inflicting one wound? How would causation affect their liability? What if the car that hit Rosie was speeding down a one way street the wrong way? Actus Reus - Causation Elements of Criminal Liability The Law Bank Factual Causation To establish causation it is necessary to firstly ask if the defendant in fact caused of the specified consequence of the offence. One way is to ask this question is:
"But for what the defendant did would the consequences have occurred?" 12 Actus Reus - Causation Elements of Criminal Liability The Law Bank But For (or sine qua non) Test Sine qua non" is Latin for "without which, not" meaning an essential condition, something that is indispensable.
In full it is "causa sine qua non" literally translated means cause without which - the event - could not have occurred. This is a basic and vital test for factual causation.
If the result would not have occurred 'but for' what the defendant did, then the prosecution has established causation in fact. Unsurprisingly, this is referred to as the 'but for' test.
13 Actus Reus - Causation Elements of Criminal Liability The Law Bank 14 R v White [1910] 2 KB 124 The defendant put some poison in his mother's milk with the intention of killing her. The mother took a few sips and went to sleep and never woke up. Medical reports revealed that she died from a heart attack and not the poison. The defendant was not liable for her murder as his act of poisoning the milk was not the cause of death. He was liable for attempt.
Principle This case established the 'but for' test. i.e would the result have occurred but for the actions of the defendant? If the answer is yes the defendant is not liable. Actus Reus - Causation Elements of Criminal Liability The Law Bank But For 15 The but for test acts as a preliminary filter that eliminates all unconnected acts or events Whats left is a range of potential legal causes.
Consider the scenarios on the next slide the but for test establishes multiple factual causes of death.
Not all factual causes make a meaningful contribution to death nor do factual causes imply blameworthiness. Actus Reus - Causation Elements of Criminal Liability The Law Bank 16 Sandra tells her husband Tony to start walking to work as part of an economy drive.
Tony walks through the park to work and encounters Dick, a beggar, who asks him for 5. Tony refuses and tells Dick to get a job.
Angered by Tonys abuse, Dick attacks Mark, a passer-by, causing his death.
Facts But for Sandras insistence that Tony walk to work, would Mark have died?
But for Tonys abuse of Dick, would Mark have died?
But for Dicks attack, would Mark have died?
No, Sandras decision was the initiating factor that started this chain of events. She is a factual cause of Marks death.
No, Tonys abuse angered Dick and led him to attack Mark thus Tony is a factual cause of Marks death.
No, Dicks attack leaves Mark with serious injuries from which he dies. Dick is a factual cause of Marks death
But For Test Outcome Actus Reus - Causation Elements of Criminal Liability The Law Bank The But For Test In the last slide all three parties are a but for cause of death but not all of them are regarded as equally to blame for Marks death. Factual causes merely establish a preliminary connection between act and consequence 17 Actus Reus - Causation Elements of Criminal Liability The Law Bank Legal Causation Having established causation in fact it is also necessary to establish causation in law.
Causation in fact does not always mean there will be causation in law.
Causation in law can be established by showing that the defendant's act was an 'operative and substantial' cause of the consequence and that there was no intervening event.
Two key cases here are Jordan(1956) & Smith (1959) 18 Actus Reus - Causation Elements of Criminal Liability The Law Bank 19 R v Jordan (1956) 40 Cr App E 152 The defendant stabbed the victim. The victim was taken to hospital where he was given antibiotics after showing an allergic reaction to them. He was also given excessive amounts of intravenous liquids. He died of pneumonia 8 days after admission to hospital. At the time of death his wounds were starting to heal.
Principle The victim died of the medical treatment and not the stab wound. As the medical treatment was 'palpably wrong' and would have 'precluded' a jury from holding that death was caused by D's action the defendant was not liable for his death. Actus Reus - Causation Elements of Criminal Liability The Law Bank 20 R v Smith [1959] 2 QB 35 The defendant, a soldier, got in a fight at an army barracks and stabbed another soldier. The injured soldier was taken to the medics but was dropped twice on route. Once there the treatment given was described as palpably wrong. They failed to diagnose that his lung had been punctured. The soldier died. The defendant was convicted of murder and appealed contending that if the victim had received the correct medical treatment he would not have died.
Principle The stab wound was an operating cause of death and therefore the conviction was upheld. Actus Reus - Causation Elements of Criminal Liability The Law Bank Substantial and Operative Substantial - Means more than something very trivial, more than something that the law considers de minimis. Operative - An 'operative' cause does not have to be the sole or main cause of the specified consequence provided it is A cause Benge (1865) This can be seen by comparing Jordan above with the case of Cheshire (1991) and by looking at Pagett (1983)
21 Actus Reus - Causation Elements of Criminal Liability The Law Bank 22 R v Cheshire [1991] 1 WLR 844 The defendant shot a man in the stomach and thigh. The man was taken to hospital where he was operated on and developed breathing difficulties. The hospital gave him a tracheotomy (a tube inserted into the windpipe connected to a ventilator). Several weeks later his wounds were healing and no longer life threatening, however, he continued to have breathing difficulty and died from complications arising from the tracheotomy. The defendant was convicted of murder and appealed. Principle His conviction was upheld despite the fact that the wounds were not the operative cause of death. 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. Since the defendant had shot the victim this could not be regarded as insignificant. Actus Reus - Causation Elements of Criminal Liability The Law Bank 23 R v Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279 To avoid arrest, the defendant used his pregnant girlfriend as a shield and fired at armed police. The police returned fire, hitting and killing the girl. The defendant was held to be the legal cause of death despite causing no physical injury himself as he set in motion the chain of events that led to death and it was foreseeable that the police would return fire.
Principle Conviction upheld. The firing at the police officers caused them to fire back. In firing back the police officers were acting in self -defence. His using the girl as a shield caused her death. Actus Reus - Causation Elements of Criminal Liability The Law Bank What else can affect the chain of causation? 24 D shouted abuse kicked the door and was forcing himself in the door of Vs room on the third floor of a youth hostel. V jumped out the window to the ground seriously injuring herself. D wanted to have sex with V who refused so he stabbed her. She went to hospital but refused a blood transfusion as it went against her beliefs. She died. DD picked up V a hitchhiker DD joked about robbing V. V jumped out of the car and fell off a cliff dying. D stabbed V during a fight in an army barracks. The paramedics dropped V twice and whilst resuscitating him managed to reduce his chances of survival by over 70%. V died. D and X attacked V on a beach knocking him unconscious. D went to withdraw money from Vs account. When he returned V was 100m away, floating in the water having suffered other serious injuries and dead. V was stabbed by D and then taken to hospital. He was given an antibiotic that he was allergic to. He was given a second lot and then an overdose of IV liquids and died 8 days later. D was on the run from the police and used his pregnant girlfriend as a human shield. He shot at the police and they shot back killing the girlfriend. D assaulted V and injured one of his fingers. V was advised to have the finger amputated but refused and subsequently died. Actus Reus - Causation Elements of Criminal Liability The Law Bank Lets take another look Connor pushes Rhys off the Empire State Building. Unknown to him, Tehmoor is firing his gun out of the window of a room on the 43 rd floor. As Rhys falls past Tehmoors window one of the bullets hits him, killing him instantly. Dave hits the floor.
Who is legally responsible for his death?
Prepare a brief to this scenario and reason using at least one case in your discussion 25 Actus Reus - Causation Elements of Criminal Liability The Law Bank So now try this one D had lost his daughter and blamed his mother for having killed her. His mother did not deny her responsibility and promised to commit suicide.
Eight days later she still had not done it. The man then came into her hut with a stick and some rope. He tied the rope to a rafter, made a noose at the other end, and urged his mother to "Get up and hang yourself." The woman asked for something to stand on. The man put a block of wood under the rope.
He then left the hut and watched his mother get upon the block of wood, put the noose around her neck, and kick the block away.
Did the man cause the death of his mother? 26 Actus Reus - Causation Elements of Criminal Liability The Law Bank Intervening Acts - novus actus interveniens Sometimes the sole cause of death or injury can seem to be a completely independent act. This is know by the Latin novus actus interveniens or an intervening act. Intervening acts break the chain of causation Intervening acts fall into three categories: Acts of the victim Acts of third parties Naturally occurring events
27 Actus Reus - Causation Elements of Criminal Liability The Law Bank Victims own act The general rule of causation is that the defendant is liable for the foreseeable consequences of his actions Therefore the victim may break the chain of causation if his reaction to the defendants initial act is extreme and unforeseeable
V tries to escape and is injured in the attempt is D liable for the harm?
Take the following cases with different outcomes
28 Actus Reus - Causation Elements of Criminal Liability The Law Bank 29 R v Roberts [1971] EWCA Crim 4 Court of Appeal A young woman aged 21 accepted a lift from the defendant at a party to take her to another party. She had not met the man before and it was 3.00 am. The defendant drove in a different direction to where he told her he was taking her and then stopped in a remote place and started making sexual advances towards her. She refused his advances and he drove off at speed. He then started making further advances whilst driving and she jumped out of the moving car to escape him. She suffered from concussion and cuts and bruises. The defendant was convicted of actual bodily harm under s.47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. He appealed contending that he did not intend or foresee a risk of her suffering actual bodily harm from his actions and that he did not foresee the possibility of her jumping out of the car and therefore her actions amounted to a novus actus interveniens.
Principle The chain of causation will be broken only if the victims actions were so daft as to be unforseeable. Actus Reus - Causation Elements of Criminal Liability The Law Bank 30 R v Williams & Davis [1992] Crim LR 198 Court of Appeal The defendants picked up a hitchhiker on the way to Glastonbury festival. The hitchhiker jumped out of the car when it was travelling at 30 mph, hit his head and died. The prosecution alleged that the defendants were in the course of robbing him when he jumped out and thus their actions amounted to constructive manslaughter. The trial judge directed the jury: ... what he was frightened of was robbery, that this was going to be taken from him by force, and the measure of the force can be taken from his reaction to it. The prosecution suggest that if he is prepared to get out of a moving car, then it was a very serious threat involving him in the risk of, as he saw it, serious injury. The jury convicted and the defendant appealed
Principle Conviction was quashed as there was an almost total lack of evidence as to the nature of the threat. The prosecution invited the jury to infer the gravity of the threat from the action of the deceased. On the issue of novus actus interveniens Stuart Smith LJ stated: "The nature of the threat is of importance in considering both the foreseeability of harm to the victim from the threat and the question whether the deceaseds conduct was proportionate to the threat, that is to say that it was within the ambit of reasonableness and not so daft as to make it his own voluntary act which amounted to a novus actus interveniens and consequently broke the chain of causation. It should of course be borne in mind that a victim may in the agony of the moment do the wrong thing."
Actus Reus - Causation Elements of Criminal Liability The Law Bank 31 R v Marjoram [1999] Court of Appeal D, a youth inflicted grievous bodily harm by forcing his way into 16 year old Jennifer Bluett's room on the third floor room in a hostel, causing her - in fear - to jump or fall (47 feet) to the ground through the window, receiving life-threatening injuries.
Principle D was guilty if such an outcome was foreseeable by a reasonable person in D's position (whether or not D had actually foreseen it). The reasonable man did not have to be the same sex and age as the defendant (although in this case he was the same age) At the time of writing (2004) Ms Bluett is still in a wheelchair, and has a 3 year-old daughter Isabella. Her civil action for damages have so far failed. Actus Reus - Causation Elements of Criminal Liability The Law Bank Unreasonable actions of a third party What if D causes V some harm but someone else does something to harm V. Is D liable for the harm?
32 The act of a third party will generally break the chain of causation unless the action was foreseeable: See Pagett above Actus Reus - Causation Elements of Criminal Liability The Law Bank Unreasonable actions of a third party This includes where D causes V some harm but medical treatment makes the harm worse or even kills him.
33 R v J ordan (1956) Doctors did break chain Treatment Palpably wrong R v Smith (1959) Ds actions still operative and substantial R v Cheshire (1991) Ds actions not independent of original act and likely to be clear law from now on Actus Reus - Causation Elements of Criminal Liability The Law Bank R v Cheshire (1991) 34
1. Did Cheshire succeed in his appeal?
2. Outline the courts decision.
3. Were the doctors to blame?
4. Were the wounds the substantial and operative cause of death?
5. Why would the courts prefer to blame Cheshire instead of the doctors?
6. Why is Cheshire significantly different than Jordan?
Actus Reus - Causation Elements of Criminal Liability The Law Bank Acts of Third Parties One final case here are the two joint appeals of Malcherek and Steel (1981)
35 Actus Reus - Causation Elements of Criminal Liability The Law Bank 36 Malcherek & Steel, R v [1981] CA Two separate appeals were heard together. In Malcherek the defendant had stabbed his wife. In Steel the defendant was accused of sexually assaulting and beating a woman over the head with a stone. In both cases the victims had been taken to hospital and placed on life support machines. The doctors in the respective cases later switched off the life support machines as both victims were not showing any activity in their brain stem. The defendants sought to argue that the doctors' actions constituted a novus actus interveniens which broke the chain of causation.
Principle Convictions upheld
The test of death is where the brain stem has died. Thus at the time of switching off the machine, the victims were already dead. The doctors could not therefore be the cause of death. Actus Reus - Causation Elements of Criminal Liability The Law Bank The Thin Skull rule Roberts makes it clear that only extreme acts will break the chain of causation and relieve the defendant of liability.
This must be considered in conjunction with the thin skull rule.
The 'thin skull' rule says that the defendant must take his victim as he finds him. Therefore, even if injury or death is not reasonably foreseeable the law still considers the defendant liable if the victim suffered from some physical or mental condition that made him or her vulnerable.
37 R v Hayward (1908) R v Holland (1841) R v Blaue (1975) Actus Reus - Causation Elements of Criminal Liability The Law Bank 38 R v Hayward (1908) 21 Cox 692 The defendant chased his wife out of the house shouting threats at her. She collapsed and died. He did not physically touch her. She was suffering from a rare thyroid condition which could lead to death where physical exertion was accompanied by fright and panic. Both the defendant and his wife were unaware she had this condition.
Principle The defendant was liable for constructive manslaughter as his unlawful act (assault) caused death. The egg shell (thin) skull rule applied. He was therefore fully liable despite the fact an ordinary person of reasonable fortitude would not have died in such circumstances.
This is true even where the Defendant has no idea of the condition Actus Reus - Causation Elements of Criminal Liability The Law Bank 39 R v Holland (1841) 2 Mood. & R 351 The defendant was involved in a fight in which he inflicted a deep cut on the victim's finger. The victim failed to take care of the wound or get medical assistance and the wound became infected. Eventually gangrene set in and the victim was advised to have his arm amputated. The victim refused and died.
Principle The defendant was liable for his death despite the victim's actions in contributing to his own death. Actus Reus - Causation Elements of Criminal Liability The Law Bank 40 R v Blaue [1975] 1 WLR 1411 Court of Appeal The defendant stabbed an 18 year old girl four times when she refused to have sexual intercourse with him. She was a practising Jehovah's witness and refused to have a blood transfusion which would have saved her life. The defendant was convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and appealed arguing that the girl's refusal to accept the blood transfusion was a novus actus interveniens breaking the chain of causation, alternatively that Holland was no longer good law.
Principle The defendant's conviction was upheld. The wound was still an operative cause of death (following R v Smith & R v Jordan) so no novus actus interveniens and Holland was still good law. Actus Reus - Causation Elements of Criminal Liability The Law Bank The Thin Skull Rule The thin skull rule is also called the egg shell skull rule.
It is called the 'thin skull rule' in appreciation that if you knock a person to the ground who has such a skull, the defendant should be liable. It is not the victim's fault that he was not blessed with a more substantial skull.
41 Actus Reus - Causation Elements of Criminal Liability The Law Bank Objectives Identify the meaning of the term causation
Describe and give examples of the meaning of factual causation
Describe and give examples of the meaning of legal causation 42 Actus Reus - Causation Elements of Criminal Liability The Law Bank True or False 1. Causation helps to prove that the actions or omissions done by D resulted in the harm to V 2. It is only the person who inflicts the final blow who can ever be charged with murder 3. White was not guilty of murder as there was no evidence that his poison contributed to his mothers death 4. There are two types of causation real and legal causation 5. Something that breaks the chain is known as a brand new act
43 Actus Reus - Causation Elements of Criminal Liability The Law Bank Starter Facts, links and odd one out 44