The act of the defendant must be substantially accelerate the death if the victim. The actus reus of the defendant must be more than a minimal cause of death. In the case of Benge the accused was in charge of a gang of railway workers and he ordered them to pull up some track failing to notice a train was due. On realising this he sent two men down the tack to warn the train driver, they failed to go far enough, the train was de-railed and several passengers killed. He was liable for their manslaughter and causation was not removed.
Once causation is established, liability will only be removed by an act of gross negligence on the part of the victim, a third party or some intervening event that was wholly inevitable. A novus actus interveniens is an act that does not break causation. The chain of causation determines the main cause for the victim’s death and outlines the certain events that took place which contributed to the victim’s death. If this causation is broken there is normally a lesser charge. For example in the cause of White the defendant was convicted of attempted murder instead of murder.
Causation is governed by a number of principles, the first being Contributory negligence of the victim. This applies where the defendant has committed an act which substantially causes the victims death, liability will not be removed by the victims own contributory negligence. The cause of Longbottom displays this principle. The victim was a deaf man who was walking in the middle of the road. The accused came speeding around the corner, and upon noticing the man sounded his horn. The victim was not alerted by the on coming car and was killed. The accused was held liable for the death.
The next principle is known as eggshell conditions or as “thin skull”. An eggshell condition occurs where a person possess a particular physical weakness which means they are more susceptible to death or injury. However a person must be taken as found where the defendant is committing the unlawful act. In the case of Blaue the accused stabbed the victim through the heart and liver 19 times, a blood transfusion was needed to save her life, however the victim was a Jehovah’s witness and refused on religious grounds. The accused was liable for her death. In the case of Hayward the accused threatened his wife in a drunken rage. She was in so much fear she ran out into the street and collapsed and died. She had an over-active thyroid gland which made her susceptible to over activity. The accused was liable for her manslaughter. The case off Mckechnie also applied this principle of causation.
Another principle applied to causation is the escape of the victim. This occurs where the defendant has behaved in such a way that his victim is put in fear and thus tries to escape; causation will not be removed if death occurs as a result unless the defendant has been grossly negligent. In the case of Pitts the victim was in fear of one accused and jumped from a bridge into a river and drowned. Causation was not removed. In the case of Roberts, the daftness test was created. The accused gave a lift to a girl in his car; he told her to undress and then tried to remove her top. She jumped from the moving vehicle and was injured. Causation was not removed as her actions where not daft or unexpected. The case of Williams and Davis also applied the daftness test under this principle.
The next principle of causation is the victim’s treatment of himself and refusal of treatment. This applies when the victim gives himself treatment for injuries caused by the defendant which results in his death; causation will only be removed is the treatment is deemed to be grossly negligent. Refusal of medical treatment will also not remove causation upon grounds of public policy. In the case of Wall the victim was severely injured by the accused. To ease the pain he drank a large quantity of alcohol and dies as a result of a heart attack. Causation was not removed as the drinking of alcohol is not grossly negligent and the attacker was liable for his death. In the case of Holland the accused hit the victim on his finger with a metal bar. When he developed gangrene he refused medical advice to have the finger amputated and eventually died. Causation was not removed from the accused. The case of Dear also followed this principle with similar facts.
Another principle governing causation is the intervention of a third party. This applies where the defendant injures the victim, only an intervening act of gross negligence on the part of the third party will remove causation. In the case of Smith the accused beat up the victim, when the ambulance men arrive they dropped him three times. At hospital the doctors failed to notice that he has severe stab wounds to his back and died. Causation was not removed from the original attacker who was found guilty of murder. The case of Jordan however removed causation from the accused yet it would probably be decided differently today. The accused stabbed the victim, his wounds were nearly recovered when he was prescribed an antibiotic by a doctor, he was allergic I the antibiotic and died. This was held to be an act of gross negligence by the doctor. The case of Cheshire also applies this same principle.
An intervening event can also affect causation. Where the victim is injured causation will be removed I the injuries were slight but were made worse by some event that could not have been predicted. Causation will not be removed if the defendant could have prevented the events by taking reasonable steps. Examples of such events include: lightning, earthquakes and any other such natural disaster.
There are many advantages when concerned with causation and the principles that are applied upon the hearing of the case. Firstly it is morally correct that the courts hold the originator of an event as being liable for the ultimate result. For example as in the case of smith, where the defendant has acted unlawfully. This keeps justice and builds up public confidence.
The judicial attitude of the courts protects public services personnel such as the police and medical staff, who are only trying to complete their everyday roles in society. Ultimately, a negligent public service worker can be dealt with under the civil law, for example negligence and employment. Everyone makes mistakes and thus to convict a doctor of murder for making a mistake would not serve public policy.
Within causation the broad concerns of a modern multi-cultural society are considered as the law takes into account religious beliefs as in the case of Blaue where the wishes of a Jehovah’s Witness where considered.
Even when causation is broken, the defendant may still be charged with a non-fatal assault.
However there are also several disadvantages to the rules concerning causation. Firstly the courts are very reluctant to break causation which can be harsh on the defendant as some could suggest in the case of Blaue.
Also the defendant may still be liable where the victim refuses medical treatment which could have saved their life as in Blaue. Some academics have argued in such circumstances the charge should be reduced to one of grievous bodily harm (S.8) where ultimately the sentence would still be up to life.
It is also suggested that it is unfair to convict a defendant where the wounds he inflicted were almost healed but then significantly worsened by a member of the medical profession as in the case of Cheshire.
Ultimately once the defendant has committed the actus reus the la takes the view that h will be responsible for all of the consequences that result from that wrongful act. Causation will only be removed by an act of gross negligence on the part of the victim, a third party or intervening event. On grounds of public policy the courts are extremely reluctant to break the link in causation.