R v Cheshire Case Summary PDF

Preview

Summary

Case summary for R v Cheshire (criminal law, actus reus)...

Description

R v Cheshire [1991] 1 WLR 844 Facts  The defendant shot deceased in the leg and in the stomach  The deceased was then taken to the hospital and placed in intensive care  At the hospital, the deceased developed respiratory problems and a tracheotomy tube was inserted in his windpipe to assist his breathing  More than two months after the shooting, the victim died of cardiorespiratory arrest due to the obstruction of his windpipe by the tracheotomy  The defendant was charged with murder  A consultant surgeon gave evidence for the defense at the trial o The leg and stomach wounds were not life-threatening at the time of the victim’s death o The death was caused by negligent medical treatment  At first instance court: the defendant would be responsible unless the medical staff were reckless Further details  The deceased would not have died if his condition was diagnosed properly and he was treated properly  An important part of this case was that the court needed to distinguish clearly between the conduct of the defendant (and his blameworthiness) form the causative effect of the death Ratio of the case  The jury did not have to analyze the competing causes of death or choose which cause was dominant  The jury had to decide whether or not the defendant’s acts could fairly be said to have made a significant contribution to the death o Whether the Crown proved that the acts of the defendants caused the death o The acts do not need to be the sole or main cause of death o It was sufficient that the acts contributed significantly to the death  Even though the negligent medical treatment was the immediate cause of the death, it does not exclude the defendant’s responsibility unless the medical treatment was so reckless (and independent of the gunshot wounds) that it could have caused the death o Also, the jury would need to consider the initial wounds to be insignificant to the death  As the medical treatment was a direct consequence of the defendant’s acts, it remained the significant cause of death Significance of the case  Clarifying the principle of actus rea requirement of murder  Clarifying legal causation, specifically, the operative cause of death...