Lecture 4 - Actus Reus (Causation) PDF

Preview

Summary

Lecture notes on Causation....

Description

LECTURE

4

ACTUS REUS: CAUSATION When the crime is a result crime, certain consequences have to follow from D’s conduct before the actus reus of the offence can be established. It has to be established that D’s conduct (act or omission) caused the result to happen. Result crimes can only be committed if a particular result occurs, ie: Context – AR of Homicide ‘The unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen’s Peace’. The original, historical definition concerned ‘the unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in rerum natura under the king’s peace’ (Coke LCJ). In a case of homicide, it is necessary to establish a causal link between the D’s unlawful killing (conduct) and death. In a case of criminal damage it would be necessary to establish a causal link between D’s conduct and damage/destruction of property belonging to another. If causation cannot be established, the actus reus of a result crime cannot be satisfied and therefore an essential element of the crime is missing. The causal link may not be easy to identify because, for example, there are a number of contributory causes of a result. The cases below establish that causation is assessed objectively. This means that it is established by reference to what a reasonable person would have foreseen in the circumstances. If the result of D’s conduct was reasonably foreseeable by a reasonable person, D will have caused that result. It is not until we study mens rea that the issue of what D needs to foresee becomes relevant to liability. 1. FACTUAL CAUSATION -

THE FIRST TEST TO BE SATISFIED

The AR must be the legal cause of the result Not all causative acts are legally culpable. The act must be a 'sine qua non' of the event, ie: but for the act the event would not have happened. R v. White (l910) 2KB It is necessary to distinguish factual and legal causation. R v. Dalloway [1847] 2 Cox 273 R v. Williams [2010] EWCA Crim 2552

2. LEGAL CAUSATION - THE SECOND TEST TO BE SATISFIED It is not correct that a person should be responsible for all the consequences of their conduct on a never-ending basis. The law has to draw a line somewhere and for this purpose, legal causation was introduced. There are various guidelines by which to determine this issue. The basic principle is that D will be responsible for all ‘reasonably foreseeable’ results, but there are exceptions. A. Homicide & Violent Offences: Any intervention/novus actus interveniens must be free, deliberate and informed. R v. Pagett [l983] 76 Cr.App. R. 279

A reasonable act performed in self-preservation and an act done in the performance of a legal duty to prevent crime are to be regarded as non-voluntary conduct. Police returned gunfire at D, killing a hostage. Held: A reasonable act performed in self-preservation and an act done in the performance of a legal duty to prevent crime are to be regarded as non-voluntary conduct. R v Rafferty [2007] EWCA Crim 1846 Robbery/GBH. V participated in the intial attack. He then left the scene. V was drowned by co-D’s. Drowning broke the chain of causation between D’s initial attack and V’s murder. Girdler [2010] EWCA Crim 2666 Whether an intervention is ‘free, deliberate and informed’ is insufficient in cases of causing death by dangerous driving. Whether the result (death) can be assessed by ‘Sensible anticipation’ is more helpful to juries. D drove dangerously and pushed V’s car into the outside lane of a motorway. X crashed into V. Both drivers were killed. B. Drugs supply cases Voluntary self-injection breaks the chain of causation between supply and death: R v Kennedy [2007] UKHL 38

C. Pollution cases Environment Agency v Empress Car Co Ltd [1998] 1 All ER 481 A common sense view. Third party intervention will not break the chain in pollution cases.

D. Medical cases (a) D's act need not be the only or main cause of the event. R v. Dyson [l908] 2KB 454 Competing causes: an attack on a person suffering meningitis. No defence to say the blows would not have caused death but for the meningitis. McKechnie [1992] 94 CAR

(b) D’s Acts must be a substantial & operating cause of the result R v. Smith [l959] 2 QB (Cts. Martial App. Ct.) Conviction of murder. Appeal on grounds that death was not a natural and sole consequence of the wound since V failed to receive blood transfusion: “It seems to the court that if at the time of death the original wound is still an operating cause and a substantial cause, then the death can properly be said to be the result of the wound, albeit that some other cause of death is also operating.” per L. Parker CJ. R v. Malcherek, R v. Steel [l981] 1WLR 690

Convictions for murder after victims were put on life support machines which were switched off following diagnosis of brain death in each case. Appeals: The act of turning off the life support machine broke the chain of causation. Held: The original wounds were a continuing, operating and substantial cause of death. R v. Cheshire [l991] 3 All.E.R. 670 Appeal against murder conviction on grounds that medical negligence broke the chain of causation. Held: l. Courts should refrain from directing juries to consider competing degrees of fault. 2. D's acts need not be the sole or main cause of death, it being sufficient that they contributed significantly to that result. 3. The responsibility of D will not be excluded unless the negligent treatment was so independent of his acts and so potent in causing death that D's acts can be regarded as insignificant.

But see R v. Jordan [l956] 40 CR.App.R. Conviction of murder. Appeal on grounds that there were two causes of death other than the original wound - medical negligence. Held: The two separate and independent features of treatment were "so palpably wrong" that the chain of causation was broken.

E. Interventions by V - You must take your victim as you find her/him R v. Blaue [l975] 3All.E.R. 446 The abnormality of the V does not break the chain of causation despite the fact that her reactions were not reasonably foreseeable. “It has long been the policy of the law that those who use violence on other people must take their victims as they find them. This....means the whole man, not just the physical.” R v. Dear [1996] CrimLR (AUG) 595. Contrast this with the next section.

F. Victim Escape cases/‘Fright & Flight’ Consider whether Blaue is consistent with the following ‘fright & flight’/ ‘victim escape’ cases. Test: Is V's reaction within the range of responses which are foreseeable or which might reasonably be expected from a person in that situation? If so, D will remain guilty. R v. Roberts [l972] 5 Cr.App.R. R v. Daley [1979] 2 WLR Held: 1. Was V in fear of physical injury? 2. Did that fear cause him to escape?

3. Did he die as a result of that escape? 4. Was his fear reasonable and caused by D's conduct? R v.Mackie [l973] 57 Cr. App. R. V was 3 years old. Fell downstairs and died attempting to escape ill- punishment. Held, applying Daley test, regard must be had to his age in considering whether his reaction and fear of immediate violence were reasonably to be expected. R v. Williams & Davis [l992] 1 WLR “The nature of the threat was important in considering both the foreseeability of harm to the victim from the threat and the question whether the deceased’s 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 broke the chain of causation.” R v. Marjoram [2000] Crim LR May 372 The reasonable man foreseeing injury must not be taken to be of the same age and sex as the D. For the purposes of establishing causation, the personal characteristics of D are irrelevant whereas those of V are highly relevant. Proof of causation/AR is objective whereas proof of MR is subjective.

G. Mens Rea limits the chain of causation Liability will be limited to a D with MR if it is clear that D knowingly risked or intended to cause a result. The real work will be done by the concept of MR....