Causation is a key element in result crimes such as murder and is closely connected to the notion of fault. There is no liability if, as a matter of fact, it is not established that the consequence would not have occurred as and when it did but for the D’s conduct. If it would have occurred anyway there is no liability as illustrated in R v White. However D was not totally absolved of responsibility given that he had clearly attempted to poison his mother! Legal causation is closely associated with moral responsibility, the de minimis principle assigns individual responsibility by considering whether the D’s conduct had made more than a minimal contribution to the consequence. If so he remains the cause as illustrated in Pagett, where although the police shot the pregnant woman they only did so in response to the situation, Pagett remained liable as he had made a significant contribution. However the law acknowledges that other parties or even the victim can break the chain of causation and therefore shift responsibility from the D onto them. This would however have to be unforeseeable or so extraordinary that D’s contribution would be regarded as insignificant. Negligent medical treatment rarely breaks the chain as it would be inappropriate to shift responsibility from D onto the Doctors who are generally acting in an emergency to save the life of the victim following an attack by the defendant (Cheshire; Smith etc). With regards to self neglect it is a question for the jury to decide as to who is at fault. This is unlikely to break the chain as in Dear even when they choose not to get help and can go as far as reopening the wounds. It can argued that this is unjust as why should D remain liable even when a reasonable person would not be able to foresee the consequence and also it’s not clear as to when this would move to the ‘daft and unexpected’ which according to Roberts would remove fault on the part of D. The D cannot avoid liability if the V is particularly susceptible to injury. For example, by having the thin skull rile as according to the law, he must take his victim as he finds them. In Blaue, the V was a Jehovah’s Witness and was stabbed by D. As a result of refusing a blood transfusion on religious grounds they died. The rule demonstrates that fault can be attached by “fluke”, as the D caused the injuries he is at fault and is therefore liable for the full consequences of his actions whether he foresaw the outcome or not.
There are three distinct degrees of fault in criminal law, these are, intention, recklessness and negligence. The more at fault a defendant is, the highest degree being intention, then the more they will be held responsible for their crimes. All three parts reflect the differing levels of mens rea on the part of the defendant. It is easier to prove objective recklessness than subjective recklessness, as objective recklessness involves comparing the actions of the defendant to the reasonable man. Following the landmark case of R v G, the objective test is no longer valid in relation to criminal damage as it did not adequately reflect individual fault. “Stupidity is not a blameworthy state of mind.” The law adequately reflects individual fault as liability is only attacked where he, himself is aware of the risk. In Cunningham, D didn’t appreciate that gas could escape and so was not regarded as being reckless.
There is also evidence to support this when looking at the two broad categories of crimes: Specific intent crimes and basic intent crimes. Crimes of specific intent are crimes where the mens rea must be intention. Since these crimes centre upon the highest degree of moral blameworthiness, the greatest degree of fault, they apply to the most serious crimes, such as murder, s.18, robbery and burglary. Subsequently, these crimes also carry the most severe sanctions. Basic intent crimes however need a mens rea of recklessness or negligence to prove criminal liability. Therefore, it can be considered that a defendant in a reckless state of mind is less at fault than one possessing the necessary intention, so these crimes tend to carry less maximum prison sentences. Involuntary manslaughter, s.20, assault and ABH are all included in the definition of basic intent crimes.
Civil law also incorporates the idea of fault into its system. Liability for negligence only arises when the defendant has breached his duty of care to his neighbour and harm occurs as a result of this. In these circumstances fault is defined as falling below a standard of conduct expected of the reasonable person in those circumstances.
Where it is D’s aim or purpose to bring about a result, responsibility can readily be applied. The Nedrick/Woolin guidelines on oblique intent prevent D from avoiding responsibility where the Jury are satisfied they appreciate the consequences (death or serious injury) as a virtual certainty even though they may not desire it.
With regards to the offences of unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter, there are some anomalies. The mens rea for that could be less than that of the section 18 or 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861; therefore not adequately reflecting fault as the sentence for manslaughter should be more severe than the sentence for s.18 or s.20. Therefore, the sentence is potentially more severe for s.18 which compared to manslaughter, is a lesser offence and so should not be as harsh.
Strict liability offences are one area of criminal law where liability is not fault based. These are exceptions to the general rule that the mens rea must be proven to commit a criminal offence. Strict liability offences are regulatory, therefore monitoring criminal offences such as parking fines or speeding tickets in order to prosecute the defendant quickly as well as freeing up court time. It is relatively straight forward to prove strict liability as no mens rea is required in relation to all or part of the actus reus. This frees up valuable court time and resources. Although, with strict liability offences it still needs to be proved that the defendant voluntarily carried out the actus reus, so there is will an element of fault required. However, the drawbacks of such an offence are that innocent people may be prosecuted as in Harrow LBC v Shah. With more serious offences there is a presumption of mens rea which clearly indicates the importance the judiciary attach to the requirement of proof of fault as confirmed in Sweet v Parsley. In this case, a land lady rented her house to a group of students. Unknown to her, they were growing cannabis which was later found by the police. She was held accountable for this; even know she had no knowledge of it. This does not adequately reflect mens rea. This was also confirmed in B v DPP where it was illustrated that the defendant must be at fault to be liable due to the seriousness of the consequences. Absolute liability offences contrast with the application of the actus reus here as when the absence of a voluntary act will not allow the defendant to avoid liability.
Taking everything into account it is apparent that fault is an essential part of our legal system and is reflected through a range of offences, defences and sentences. Without the requirement of proof of fault, there is potential for injustice. However, there are areas of the law where the imposition of liability without proof of fault can be justified on the grounds of public policy, mostly in the form of strict liability offences. On the whole, the public expects and wants the law to identify who is at fault and punish them with the corresponding sentence.
