Causation in Criminal Liability-Crimnal Law PDF

Preview

Summary

Causation in Criminal Liability....

Description

Causation in criminal liability. Causation refers to the enquiry as to whether the defendant's conduct or omission caused the damage. Causation must be established in all result crimes and the burden of prove is always on the prosecution. Causation in criminal liability is proved by proving three elements: that the defendant’s conduct was the factual cause of the consequence, showing that it was the legal cause of that consequence, and there was no intervening act which broke the chain of causation1. The general rule on factual causation is that causation is established if the result would not have occurred ‘but for’ the defendant’s conduct. The defendant’s breach of duty must as a matter of fact be a cause of the damage. However, it has no application where there are several successive causes of an accident. The principle of ‘but for’ test was established in the case of R v White,2 where it was established that the defendant was not liable for her mother’s murder as his act of poisoning the milk was not the cause of death.

In legal causation, the rule in this area is known as the test of the beyond de minimis. It means that “the contribution of the accused to the result is more than minimal” 3 in legal causation, the harm must result from a culpable act. This was set out in R v Dalloway4, where it was held that the defendant's action need not be the only cause. Liability can arise provided the defendant's act was more than a minimal cause. However, culpability act does not apply to strict liability crime as brought out in R v Williams5, where it was held that the offence was one of strict liability and therefore fault in causing death was not required. It was sufficient that his driving was a cause of death, it need not be a substantial cause.

In Thin skull rule, the gist of the rule is that the defendant must take his victim as he finds him. This mean if one has a particularly vulnerable victim one is fully liable for the consequences to them even if an ordinary person would not have suffered such severe consequence 6. Furthermore, OCR Criminal Law For A2, Jacqueline Martin, Hodder Education, 3rd edition, page 15. [1910] 2 KB 124, Criminal Liability , Finbarr McAuley and J. Paul McCutcheon , Round Hall Sweet & Maxwell, Dublin 2000, at page 244. 4 (1847) 2 Cox 273, 5 [2011] 1 WLR 588 Court of Appeal, 6 R v Blaue [1975] 1 W.L.R 1411 at 1415 1 2 3

1

this rule applies irrespective of whether the defendant was aware of the condition as applied in R v Hayward7. A wife who was suffering from thyroid condition collapsed and died after threat by husband. It was held that the defendant was liable for constructive manslaughter as his unlawful act 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. The last element of causation is novus actus interveniens. It is a Latin term for an intervening unforeseeable event that occurs after the defendant’s act and operates to precipitate or worsen the plaintiff’s loss. Different tests apply to decide if the chain has been broken depending on the intervening party. One test is that act of a third party will generally break the chain of causation unless the action was foreseeable. In R v Pagget8, It was held that a neither a reasonable act taken for the purpose of self-preservation, nor an act done in the execution of a legal duty, could not constitute a novus actus interveniens for the purposes of the causal chain. Where the act is of the victim, the chain of causation will not be broken unless the victim's actions are disproportionate or unreasonable in the circumstances9. Only where the victim’s actions were unexpected that no reasonable man could have expected it would there be a break in the chain of causation.

Where medical intervention contributes to death , it is unlikely to break the chain of causation unless it is so independent of the defendant’s act and in itself so potent in causing death10.

In conclusion, causation is one element in a crime that majorly impact on the liability of the defendant. It is concerned with whether the defendant’s conduct contributed sufficiently to the prohibited consequence to justify the criminal liability.

7 8 9 10

(1908) 21 Cox 692. (1983) 76 Cr App R 279. R V Roberts [1971] EWCA Crim 4 Court of Appeal. R V Jordan (1956) 40 Cr App E 152.

2

References.  OCR Criminal Law for A2, Jacqueline Martin, Hodder Education, 3rd edition, page 15.  Criminal Liability , Finbarr McAuley and J. Paul McCutcheon , Round Hall Sweet & Maxwell, Dublin 2000, at page 244.  http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Causation-in-criminal-liability.php.

3...