Rabea Ashraf

Actus Reus

Supervision 1:

Criminal Law supervision 1: Actus Reus

1. Under what circumstances will the act of the victim amount to a
novus actus interveniens?
Novus actus interveniens -> Novus actus interveniens is a new intervening act or event that
takes over as the new operative cause, relegating the defendants actions to the realms of the
history of the case. The novus actus interveniens doctrine relies on the difference between
cause and conditions. Only abnormal causes can be novus actus interveniens that can break
the chain of causation because conditions cant break the chain of events. The difficulty is to
differentiate between normal and abnormal events and to do this there are three types of
novus actus interveniens.
The only circumstance under which the act of the victim would amount to novis actus
interveniens would be if there was a new act or event which happened that breaks the chain
of causation. The new act or event would take over as the new operative cause.
Examples of circumstances that will amount to a novus actus interveniens are, suicide where
the victim has directly killed themselves, natural events that werent foreseeable, where the
victim escapes, and some medical and drug cases.
R v Smith (1959)
Details of Case -> Smith was a soldier who got into a fight with another soldier and stabbed
the other soldier. A series of events occurred which contributed to his death. The victim was
put on a stretcher to take him to hospital, but he was dropped a couple of times. When the
victim arrived at the hospital, the doctor failed to realise that he had a punctured lung, and
so gave him the wrong kind of treatment. So there are many causes which lead to his death.
At the trial, Smith is convicted of murder, on appeal he argues that the stab was not the main
cause of death therefore he is not legally responsible.
Held -> The court dismissed this and upheld the murder charging, stating that his actions
were the operating and substantial cause of death.
It seems to the court that if at the time of death the original wound is still an operating
cause and a substantial cause, then death can properly be said to be the result of the wound,
albeit some other cause is also operating.

R v McKechnie (1992)
Details of Case -> This is a less obvious application of the thin skull rule, where owning to the
injuries inflicted by the defendant, the victim was not able to receive the medical treatment
that he needed for an ulcer (which he had nothing to do with the injuries caused by the
defendant) and died as a result.
Held -> The defendant had caused the victims death.

Rabea Ashraf
Actus Reus

Supervision 1:

2. Under what circumstance will medical treatment break the chain

of causation? Why do you think the courts have been so unwilling
to accept that medical treatment will break the chain?
The courts have been unwilling to accept that medical treatment breaks the chain of
causation because then in many cases the fault would lie with the medical treatment. It can
be seen that in the majority of cases the victim has medical treatment as a direct result of the
first cause. If medical treatment always broke the chain of causation, then the defendant
would always be free because the defendants act would never be considered the operative
act. Often hospitals have to make certain decisions such as which patients to prioritise, if the
courts accepted that medical treatment breaks the chain, then there would be many claims,
which would be unnecessary on the medical system. The majority of doctors perform their
duties with good intentions, however the field of medicine is one in which it has to be
accepted that people die. If the public built a case every time someone died, doctors would
not be able to continue with their job.
Medical treatment can break the chain of causation if there is substantial negligence on
behalf of the doctors and it amounts to novus actus interveniens. For example,

R v Blaue (1975)
Details of Case -> The defendant stabbed the victim, resulting in the victim needing a blood
transfusion. However, the victim refused to consent to the operation as it was contrary to her
beliefs as a Jehovahs Witness. She was told that without the transfusion she would die, but
she stuck by her refusal and died the next day. The appellant was subsequently convicted of
manslaughter, but appealed, arguing that the victims refusal to have a blood transfusion
broke the chain of causation between the stabbing and the death and was the operating
factor of her death.
Held -> HL disagreed and upheld the charge of murder on the grounds of the thin skull rule.
The crucial fact in this decision was that the victims act was in effect an omission of failing to
consent to a blood transfusion. Therefore an omission of the victim will not break the chain
of causation.

R v Jordan (1956)
Details of Case -> This case was an exception as medical treatment did break the cause of
causation. The defendant stabbed the victim. The victim was taken to hospital, where the
wound had almost healed when a doctor administered a drug to which the victim was
allergic. The drug killed the victim.
Held -> The court heard evidence that the doctor should have known that the victim was
intolerant to the drug. CA held that the medical treatment and not the defendant caused the
death to the victim. There were 2 crucial factors that led to this conclusion:
1. The original wound had virtually healed at the time of the death. In medical terms the
wound inflicted by the defendant had not contributed to the death of the deceased.
2. The treatment provided by the hospital was abnormal: palpably wrong or grossly
negligent. It should have been known by the doctor that the victim was intolerant to
the antibiotic.

Rabea Ashraf
Actus Reus

Supervision 1:

R v Cheshire (1991)
Details of Case -> The appellant shot the victim in the leg and stomach during an argument
in a fast food restaurant. The victim was taken to hospital and placed in intensive care. A
tracheotomy tube was inserted in his windpipe because he was having breathing difficulties.
The victim was in hospital for almost two months, in which he had nearly recovered from his
wound. However the victim suddenly died because the windpipe had narrowed where the
tracheotomy had been performed. This was a rare and unknown complication of such a
procedure. The defendant was convicted of murder, despite evidence showing that there was
poor healthcare given to the victim.
Held -> The defendant was convicted of murder, however he appealed on the basis that the
trial judge had wrongly directed the jury that only if the medical treatment could be
described as reckless could the appellant be said not to have caused the victims death. He
said his initial action had been broken by bad medical treatment. However the defendant
had contributed significantly to the situation. The length of time is pretty significant because
the victim had recovered pretty well. CA didnt agree and charge of murder was upheld. This
decision was heavily criticised at the time.

R v Malcherek (1981)
Details of Case -> The husband stabbed his wife, resulting in his wife being put on a life
support machine. When she was pronounced brain dead the machines were turned off. The
husband was convicted of murder but argued that the intervention of the doctor in
disconnecting a life support machine had caused the victims death, not the initial stab
wound.
Held -> They dismissed this and murder was upheld.

R v Smith (1959)
Details of Case -> Smith was a soldier who stabbed the another soldier. A series of events
occurred which contributed to his death. The victim was put on a stretcher to take him to
hospital, but he was dropped a couple of times. When the victim arrived at the hospital, the
doctor failed to realise that he had a punctured lung, and so gave him the wrong kind of
treatment. So there are many causes which lead to his death. At the trial, Smith is convicted
of murder, on appeal he argues that the stab was not the main cause of death therefore he is
not legally responsible.
Held -> The court dismissed this and upheld the murder charging, stating that his actions
were the operating and substantial cause of death.
Lord Parkar CJ says, Only if it can be said that the original wounding is merely the setting in
which another cause operates can it be said that the death does not result from the wound.
Putting it another way, only if the second cause is so overwhelming as to make the original
wound merely part of the history can it be said that the death does not flow from the wound.

Rabea Ashraf
Actus Reus

Supervision 1:

3. Should there be a general duty to help those in danger in the

criminal law of England and Wales?

Yes
-

Having a general duty to help those in danger would mean that there will be a
level of humanity in the state. People will be aware that they have a legal
obligation to help others.
Crimes cant be hidden with the excuse of helping
We should not hold the principle of individual autonomy we should not put
others first, but help everyone in society.
A failure to act/omission will result in crime and the number of crimes in
omission will increase massively.

No

Any innocent motives and actions of the person trying to help can be
misinterpreted. Pragmatically it would be difficult to ensure fairness in cases
and to prove that reasonable actions had been taken.
A failure to act/omission will result in crime and the number of crimes in
omission will increase massively.
There would be problems of causation, i.e. the rules which decide whether a
defendant is responsible for a harm.
By having liability in omission means that the country does have some general duty
so it cannot be regarded as having none at all, because there are five situations in
which liability for omissions apply.
People should only be punished for positive acts.
Individual autonomy should be prioritised as we should put ourselves first.
Policy reasons

Rabea Ashraf
Actus Reus

Supervision 1:

4. Victor is an elderly man of 82. David the burglar comes in and

knocks him unconscious. When Victor wakes up 2 hours later he is
still dazed, falls over, cuts his head and knocks himself out.
Because of children commitments his home help, Angela comes in
a day later, and then calls the ambulance. When he gets to
hospital, he is not seen for 6 hours due to staff shortages, he dies
as a result of blood loss and dehydration.
Who caused Victors death in law?

This would be seen as a result crime. Therefore the factual and legal causation is
important.

Factually, it can be seen that David causes Victors death by the initial punch which
knocked him unconscious.

Looking at the but for test; but for Davids actions, the chain of causation would not
have begun and resulted in Victors death. If David had not punched Victor to begin with,
he would not have fallen unconscious and the following situation would not have arisen.

As factual causation is not sufficient, legally it can be seen that Davids punch was the
operating and substantial cause of Victors death.

On the other hand, if Victor had received help earlier, he may well have survived, so lack
of staff at the hospital could be to blame or the fact that Angela didnt come when she was
supposed to, however these are not operating and substantial causes and cannot be
regarded as new intervening acts.

Victors home help Angela had a statutory duty that was written in contract to look after
him. However there is a lack of information given, as we do not know precisely what her
duties entailed. E.g. was her duty to make sure he had taken his tablets or to clear his
house? We do not even know if Angela had visited Victor directly before he got attacked.
We also do not know if it was Angelas duty to visit Victor on certain days, or if she had to
tell him or the agency on days she could not come to see him.

The facts are that Angela came a day late. However was it foreseeable that these events
would happen? Even if Angela had visited him a day earlier, Victor may still have died.
Her omission can cause a break in the chain of causation, but this omission did not kill
Victor. The burglar did not foresee Angelas help, he just did the act thin skull rule.

Victors age may also be a cause, had Victor been younger etc. then he might have had
more energy in him and called for help quicker. However, applying the thin skull rule,
David has to take his victim exactly as he found him, which was in a vulnerable state and
this lead to the deterioration in the situation. Therefore, in law David causes Victors
death.

Not told if hospital gave any treatment, therefore no intervening act because hospital has
not given anything to intervene. R v Smith can be used to explain that the second act
contributing to the result needs to be so serious that it overrules the first one. Although
the hospital committed gross negligence, they cannot be held liable for the death.

R v Watson [1989]
Point of Law -> It is no defence for a defendant to say that the injuries or death were caused
by the physical condition of the victim.