Transcript Criminal Law 1

Criminal Law
Murder & Causation
What’s Actus Reus again?
 Any crime may require one or more as elements:
 physical conduct – e.g. appropriating property [in theft]
 producing a consequence – e.g. causing death [in murder]
 possibly status – e.g. being member of proscribed organisation [terrorism
legislation]
 Prosecution may have to prove one or more of:
 an act
 maybe failure to act or simply status
 committed in legally relevant circumstances
 and (maybe) a prohibited result
Homicide
 Homicide: family of offences linked by D causing
death:
 murder - requires intent to kill
 voluntary manslaughter - although intent to kill, reduced
through circumstances:
•
•
diminished responsibility: s.2 Homicide Act 1957
provocation: s.3 HA57
 involuntary manslaughter - no intent to kill but blameworthy
conduct - e.g. grossly negligently
 other:
•
infanticide: victim is under 1 year old
•
causing death by dangerous driving : s.1 Road Traffic Act 1988
‘Actus reus’ in Homicide
 unlawfully killing a reasonable
person who is in being and
under the King’s Peace, the
death following within a year
and a day (Coke) - shortened
to causing death
 act must be unlawful
 the soldier or executioner may have right to lawfully kill
 end-of-life decisions by doctors. Do they have the right to
lawfully kill?
The Act in Homicide
 victim must be a person in being:
 Malcherek 1981 – no brain stem activity – does original injury or decision to
switch off life support cause death? Was V already dead? Court avoids issue – D’s
act was operating and substantial cause
 foetus:
•
not a life in being but see Abortion Act 1967
•
AGs Ref 3/94 1997 – stabbed mother, premature baby who died after birth. House of
Lords hold D guilty of manslaughter.
 also killing under the King’s Peace - excludes alien enemies in
time of war
 [historically] killing to take place within a year and a day repealed by Law Reform (Year and a Day) Act 1996
The Act in Homicide
 Key element is killing another:
the defendant must be shown to have caused
the death of the victim
 White 1908 - D does his best to poison mother
but does he actually do it?
Causation: general requirement
 Does D cause V’s death? But:
 Causation is not peculiar to homicide - dealing with a general principle
of criminal law:
 s.18 Offences against the Person Act - D must cause grievous bodily
harm
 s.15 Theft Act 1968 - obtaining property by deception (the deception
must cause the victim to hand over the property)
 strict liability - can play a part even here
 Gosney 1971
•
no indicating signs as D comes onto dual carriageway - drove on wrong side of road –
careless driving?
Causation - factually
 Does D’s contribution cause the result?
 first: factually
 ‘but for’ or ‘sine qua non’ principle - result would not have
occurred without D’s act
•
Dalloway 1847 – driving cart without hands on reins – child runs in front –
would have died anyway
 irrelevant that D’s act is not the only cause
•
Benge 1865 – railway maintenance negligent – irrelevant that TPs also
negligent
•
Pagett 1983 - V used as human shield by D and shot by PC
Causation: legal aspects
 Factual causation is necessary but not sufficient
 second: legal aspects:
 substantial: D’s act more than minimal cause: Hennigan 1971
•
only necessary for prosecution to show D’s dangerous driving was a cause of the accident
and was more than de minimis; not necessary to show that it was a 'substantial' cause
 ordinary hazard: D might subject V to normal risk but not increase
that risk - does not legally cause result
•
•
Bush 1880
 puts V into hospital where catches fatal illness
Boswell 1973 Crim LR 307
 chases onto electrified rail – here increasing risk
Causation: legal aspects
 legal aspects (cont):
 need not be direct: D need not touch the V
• Watson 1989 – verbal abuse of elderly victim by burglar
• Towers 1874 – assaults girl holding baby – baby convulsions and
dies
• Halliday 1889, Mackie 1973, – V dies seeking to escape assault
 take victim as you find them:
• Hayward 1908; Blaue 1975 - V might suffer from weak heart or
egg shell skull
Causation: key principle
 Key principle:
 if D has factually caused the result, has also legally caused it if
a reasonable person would have foreseen that consequence
 Roberts 1972 - V’s seeks to escape from moving car - act of escaping
was unreasonable but not so unreasonable as not to be foreseeable
 Pagett 1983 – V used as human shield by D and shot by PC
 Williams 1992 – gave lift to V – tried to rob – V jumps from moving car.
Was it within the range of responses which could be expected? (Trial
judge fails to give direction on causation – conviction quashed)
Breaking the chain:causation
 Roberts 1972 and Williams 1992 - in either,
does V’s action break link between D’s
conduct (threat) and the consequence
(injury)?
• Look at causation as a chain: is there any intervening act that breaks
that chain so as to remove D from responsibility?
Breaking the chain: the victim
 Novus actus interveniens - breaking the chain of causation
 Victim’s actions:
 Roberts 1972, Williams 1992 and escape cases
•
compare Blaue 1975 - is principle of foreseeability in conflict with ‘taking your
victim as you find her’?
•
Dear 1996 – V opens wounds caused by D
 Kennedy 1999 Crim LR 65 - hands syringe of heroin to V - convicted - but is
there causation?
•
Dias 2001 – D supplies but V injects heroin

Causation is matter of fact for jury – distinguish A injecting B with supplying B – but latter
may still cause death where encouragement? Also Rogers 2003, Finlay 2003
Breaking the chain: third parties
Novus actus interveniens - breaking the
chain of causation
 TP’s actions: where intervention is voluntary
act of responsible actor, this can relieve D of
responsibility

 problems where TP’s actions contribute to result
Breaking the chain: third parties
 In Smith 1959, V is dropped and receives poor
medical treatment. Does not break the chain of
causation:
 at time of death, original wound was still operating and
substantial cause - see also Malcherek 1981
 Compare with Jordan 1956 where original
wound had healed and V died of intolerance to
terramycin
Causation
 Smith and Jordan can be reconciled on grounds of
‘operating and substantial cause’.
 But consider:
 Cheshire 1991 where V dies 2 months after shooting and
because of rare complication, narrowing of windpipe.
Conviction was affirmed
 Pagett 1983 where V is shot by police
 ‘Principled tests’ are no more than a veil under which
decisions are ultimately based on policy
considerations.