Causation Essay Discussing how far the actions of the victim or a third party can break the chain of causation in result crimes. Critically assess how far the law in this area is fair and consistent? PDF

Preview

Summary

Causation Essay Discussing how far the actions of the victim or a third party can break the chain of causation in result crimes. Critically assess how far the law in this area is fair and consistent?...

Description

Causation Essay Discuss how far the actions of the victim or a third party can break the chain of causation in result crimes. Critically assess how far the law in this area is fair and consistent? Result crimes are criminal offences that require a prohibited result as an essential element and the required consequence to occur in order for a crime to occur.In result crimes, it is necessary to demonstrate that the accused's actions or omissions significantly contributed to the prohibited consequence. In criminal law, this is a matter of causation. Causation is a difficult legal concept in general. Causation can be established through either factual or legal causation. The issue of factual causation, according to the Court of Appeal in Pagett and Cheshire, is primarily one for the jury once the courts have determined that there is sufficient evidence to leave it to them. The ‘but for' test can be used to establish actual causation. Hart and Honoré describe a factual cause as: “an event or act which ‘makes the difference’ between something happening and something not happening”. A novus actus interveniens can break the chain of causation. In their book, Simester and Sullivian define a ‘novus actus' as “an action or an event that ‘intervenes' to ‘break the causal chain' leading from D to the eventual harm.” When the result is attributed to a novus actus, D is released from culpability, and his actions are no longer regarded as a major and operative cause. An intervening act will not always break the chain of causation. In some cases, the defendant must take his victim as he finds him. For example, in the cases of Smith, and Blaue, the victim denied medical care due to religious convictions. According to Lawton “it does not lie in the mouth of the assailant to say that the victim’s religious beliefs which prevented him from accepting certain types of treatment were unreasonable”. As a result, your victim's reluctance to get treatment would not absolve you of responsibility under the eggshell skull rule. As a result, the chain of causation would not be broken. Only a voluntary, intentional, and informed action by another mature person can break the causal connection between the defendant and the result, whether or not such intervention is foreseeable. The second is a foreseeability principle: interventions that may be said to be extraordinary can "break" the causal chain even if they are not voluntary, intentional, or informed. Concerning the victims, the assailant may be viewed as not responsible if the victims' behaviour in response to the defendant's act is not reasonable under the circumstances. The causal responsibility moves to a later occurrence under this concept, relieving the earlier actor. However, the defendant's

criminal culpability does not totally disappear, and he or she may be held accountable for an attempt, dangerous conduct or lesser harm. The law recognises a wide range of events and individuals as intervening causes, including carelessness, medical treatments, victim behaviour, drug administration, naturally occurring occurrences, and an innocent person. The law has taken a strong stance in situations where medical practitioners are claimed to be the third parties breaking the chain of causation. Until the nineteenth century, if a medical treatment was the immediate cause of a victim's death, regardless of whether the treatment was negligent or clearly unlawful, the defendant bore complete culpability for this prohibited outcome. There were some inconsistencies in the jury's conclusions later on. In the well-known case of Jordan, for example, at the first trial, a knife wound was believed to be the primary cause of death, resulting in a conviction. The conviction was dismissed by the Court of Criminal Appeal when new evidence from two medical specialists claimed the victim's medical care was gravely inappropriate and led to his death. In contrast to Smith and Blaue, Despite medical personnel' severe negligence, the wound was determined to be an operating and substantial cause of death, and the defendant was held criminally liable. The court's conclusion in the latter case is often seen as being overly narrow and dependent on the facts of the case. In recent cases, a medical treatment is only thought to break the chain of causation if it is so obviously incorrect that it renders the original wound and the accused's forbidden action inconsequential in the context. The incidents in which a victim self-injects a lethal overdose of narcotics and the defendant either supplied the drugs, aided, or in any other manner promoted the victim's self-injection have been a confusing issue within the legal system. The victim's free will of self-injecting, as stated by frequently used causation concepts, offers the breaking point in causation, absolving the defendant of culpability. Despite this, the Court of Appeal reached the opposite conclusion in cases such as Kennedy. The accused can be judged guilty if the victim's and defendant's acts were integrated, suggesting it was a joint act. The House of Lords criticised these rulings, and the instances referenced in this paragraph were overruled. It is stated that the provider of lethal drugs can never be held liable for an unlawful act of manslaughter as long as the victim has free will in self-administering the drug. While these findings may be correct in moral, policy, and political terms, the issue of responsibility in drug supply instances remains unresolved. In terms of the concepts of causation, there has been inconsistency and conflicting perspectives. On the topic of causation, there has never been a unified judgement. The Court of Appeal held in Dias that a fully aware and conscious victim would not break the chain of causation, whereas the House of Lords held in Kennedy that D was not guilty.

Where V injects himself with the lethal drug and is a fully educated and responsible adult, the chain of causation is broken. In Evans, the Court of Appeal has recently decided that if a supplier discovers that his victim has grown critically ill but does nothing to help him, he may be charged with gross negligence manslaughter. In Cato, it was decided that anybody who injects a banned drug into a person who consents is guilty under s.23. When exposed with drugs, a drug addict can be anticipated to inject, implying plausible grounds for liability charges. Finally, the evidence in such cases is often fragmented, and the courts have yet to reach an agreement. In conclusion, in all result crime cases, establishing causation is a crucial step. As stated throughout the essay, the exact definition of causation in the setting of laws is a problem not just in theory but also in practise. Despite considerable overlap in theoretical methods and case law, a number of corner cases highlight inconsistencies and issues with causation. Although courts, legal professionals, and academics all recognise factual and legal causation and its principles, the law of causation obviously needs to be more rationalized, especially in the context of causal liability and the application of novus actus interveniens. The criminal justice system and legislation should follow and be modified in order to achieve justice, since new cases emerge day in day out....