The second rule of factual causation is the de minimis rule. This is illustrated in R v Watson, this is where Watson burgled the home of a frail 87- year-old man, who died of a heart attack as a result. Watson was convicted of manslaughter but his conviction was quashed on appeal as it could not be proved that Watson’s act was more than a minimal cause of death. Therefore the defendant’s conduct was more than a minimal cause of the victim’s injury or death.
Applying this rule to Ali’s case is not that significant because Ali most probably didn’t intend to kill Charlie, but he’s still dead. Ali wanted to injure Charles, where as Watson wanted to burgle someone’s home not cause them personally any damage. Watson may have not known about the 87 year old ‘frail hearted’ man and how the man’s life may have been affected by the burglary, I think it is similar to the ‘Thin Scull’ test because Watson may have not known the Victim’s physical condition and their intention may have not been to cause them personally any danger. Ali on the other hand took the risk of injuring someone although there is a possibility of death occurring, however the defendant’s state of mind resulted in an action of being provoked.
The first rule of legal causation states the defendants act must have contributed to the victim’s injury or death in a significant and operative way. In R v Cheshire there was an argument in a chip shop, D shot V in the stomach and leg. V was admitted to hospital but following negligent treatment in intensive care, he later died. D was still liable for V’s death even though the stomach and leg injuries were no longer life threatening, they were however, still a substantial and operative cause of death.
This in Ali’s case could apply because he was the main cause why Charles was in hospital. Also that it may have not been the punch that Ali delivered that killed Charles but the collision made because of the act, Also the time taken for the ambulance to arrive could have affected the amount of time Charles had to live but again it’s Ali’s fault why Charles was in the bad condition, therefore the ambulance couldn’t be blamed for the death although is seems as though the ambulance has performed an Omission, a failure to act within the DUTY ASSUMED FOR ANOTHER, but if this was the case there would be too many cases filled against the service and there may be a legitimate reason or excuse for their late arrival.
Considering the factual and legal causations to this case, I believe Ali is liable for the death of Charles, because the chain of causation was not broken; therefore it resulted in a crime. It may have not been intentional to kill Charles but it’s a risk, even though maybe a low risk, Ali took with reacting violently to an argument.
