Criminal Law I Notes

1. Elements of criminal liability

General: Mens Rea + Actus Reus = Harm

(C) CAUSATION
- Divided into 2 categories, (i) Factual Causation and, (ii) Legal Causation.

(i) Factual Causation

- Factors that without which the result would not have occurred.
- The establishing of the accused’s conduct as a factual cause is an important
preliminary step to the establishing of liability.
- The Actus Reus of result crimes requires that the accused person not only behaved
in a particular manner but also to have caused a particular result/event.

(ii) Legal Causation

- Harm can’t be seen that it happened directly by the accused’s act.

> R v Roberts [1971] EWCA Crim 4

A young woman aged 21 accepted a lift from the Df at a party to take her to another
party. She had not met the man before and it was 3.00 am. The defendant drove in a
different direction to where he told her he was taking her and then stopped in a remote
place and started making sexual advances towards her. She refused his advances and he
drove off at speed. He then started making further advances whilst driving and she
jumped out of the moving car to escape him. She suffered from concussion and cuts and
bruises. He appealed contending that he did not intend or foresee a risk of her suffering
actual bodily harm from his actions and that he did not foresee the possibility of her
jumping out of the car and therefore her actions amounted to a novus actus interveniens(
breaking the chain of causation).

Held: The victim’s action was a natural result of the Df’s actions it matters not whether
the Df could foresee the result. Only where the victim’s actions were so unexpected that
no reasonable man could have foreseen it would then be a break in the chain of causation.

> R v Smith [1959] 2 QB 35

The defendant, a soldier, got in a fight at an army barracks and stabbed another soldier.
The injured soldier was taken to the medics but was dropped twice on route. Once there
the treatment given was described as palpably wrong. They failed to diagnose that his
lung had been punctured. The soldier died. The defendant was convicted of murder and
appealed contending that if the victim had received the correct medical treatment he
would not have died.
Held: The stab wound was an operating cause of death and therefore the conviction was
upheld.

(D) BREAKING THE CHAIN OF CAUSATION (Novus Actus Interveniens)

- There must be an unbroken sequence of cause and effect between the act and
injury in attaching liability.

> Cord & Another v Pacific Steam Navigation Co Ltd, The Oropresa (1943) 1 All ER 211

A collision occurred at sea between the Oropresa and the Manchester Regiment. The
latter ship was so seriously damaged that the captain ordered the majority of the crew to
take the lifeboats. He then decided to go with 16 of the crew to the Oropresa in another
lifeboat. The lifeboat capsized, as a result of which 9 of the crew lost their lives. The
personal representatives and dependants of one of the deceased seaman sued the owners
of the Oropresa. The owner however contended that the chain of causation has been
broken by the captain ordering the men to row to the Oropresa.

Held: The action taken by the captain was the natural consequence of the emergency in
which he had been placed by the negligence of Oropresa and there had been no break in
the chain of causation. The seaman’s death was a direct consequence of the negligent act
of the Oropresa.

> Leong Siong Sun v PP (1985) 2 MLJ 250

The deceased was admitted to the hospital for a lacerated wound on the arm and swelling
on the abdomen. It turned out that his intestines was ruptured. He left the hospital on his
own accord after treatment but without being operated on. He died of peritonise caused
by the infection and inflammation of the membrane lining the cavity of the abdomen, due
to the rupture of the intestine. The counsel submitted that the cause of death was the
failure on the part of the deceased to be treated properly.

Held: It was unable to say that the rupture of the intestines was not the operating and
substantial cause of death, nor was it able to say that the failure to operate on the deceased
was so overwhelming the cause of death as to make the rupture of the intestines a part of
the history. The appeal was dismissed.

(I) Ways that the chain of causation can be broken (3)

(i) Third party’s Intervention

- Harm to victim happened due to the act of a third party.

- It must not have any relation to the accused’s act. ie: Not reasonably foreseeable
by the accused.

> R v Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279

The police was attempting to arrest the appellant for some serious offence he had committed.
He fired at the police while using the girl as a shield. The police returned fire and shot the girl
who died. He appealed against the manslaughter conviction on the issue of causation.

Held: The conviction was upheld. The firing at the police officers caused them to fire back. In
firing back the police officers were acting in self -defence. His using the girl as a shield
caused her death.

(ii) Intervention by the victim

- This can be divided into 2 categories, (a) escape or fright and flight cases and, (b)
the egg-shell skull situations.

(a) Escape/ Fright and flight cases

- In these situations, the victim either dies or is hurt from injuries not directly
caused by the offender.

> R v Halliday (1889) 61 LT 701

The appellant whilst drunk, threatened his wife. She attempted to escape through a
window and broke her leg in the fall.

Held: If a man creates in another person’s mind an immediate sense of danger which
causes that person to try and escape and in doing so he injures himself, the person who
creates such a state of mind is responsible for the injuries which result.

> R v Roberts (1971) 56 Cr App R 95

Same as R v Roberts [1971] EWCA Crim 4 explained above.

> R v Williams & Davis [1992] Crim LR 198

The defendants picked up a hitchhiker on the way to Glastonbury festival. The hitchhiker
jumped out of the car when it was travelling at 30 mph, hit his head and died. The
prosecution alleged that the defendants were in the course of robbing him when he
jumped out and thus their actions amounted to constructive manslaughter.

Held: On the issue of novus actus interveniens, it was held that the nature of the threat is
of importance in considering both the foreseeability of harm to the victim from the threat
and the question whether the deceased’s conduct was proportionate to the threat, that is to
say that it was within the ambit of reasonableness and not so daft as to make it his own
voluntary act which amounted to a novus actus interveniens and consequently broke the
chain of causation.
(b) Egg-shell skull situations

- These are situations when the victim suffers from an infirmity and dies from
injuries which would not kill an ordinary person.

- Section 299 PC (Explanation 1): A person, who causes bodily injury to another
who is labouring under a disorder, disease, or bodily infirmity, and thereby
accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his death. ie:
the accused has to take his victim as he is.

> Bharat Singh v Emperor (1933) 34 Cri LJ 99 – DOES NOT SUPPORT THIS RULE!

The deceased had died several days after being attacked. The post mortem report
disclosed that the cause of death was asphyxia and heart failure brought on by the
injuries. The evidence showed that he suffered from an enlarged heart, which increased
the probability of heart failure even from minor injuries. The appellant appealed against
the conviction.

Held: There is no evidence that the accused had any knowledge that the deceased was
suffering from a badly enlarged heart. In any case, since an ordinary person would not
suffer the same consequences, the appellant was then convicted of voluntary causing hurt
and not culpable homicide. The appeal was allowed.

(iii) Through medical treatment

- This situation only covers exceptional medical treatment.

- Section 299 PC (Explanation 2): Where death is caused by bodily injury, the
person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death
although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might
have been prevented.

> Salebhai Kadarali AIR (1949) Nag 451

It was held that ordinary complications flowing from the original wound stated that it did
not break the chain of causation.

> R v Jordan (1956) 40 Cr App E 152

The Df stabbed the victim. The victim was taken to the hospital where he was given anti-
biotic after showing an allergic reaction to them. He was also given excessive amounts of
intravenous liquids. He died on pneumonia 8 days after admission to the hospital. At the
time of death his wounds were starting to heal.
Held: It was sufficient to point out here that this was not normal treatment. Not only one
feature but two separate and independent features of treatment were in the opinion of the
doctor, palpably wrong and these produced symptoms-which were the direct and
immediate cause of death. Accordingly, the accused was held not guilty for his death.

(E) REQUIREMENTS TO ESTABLISH CAUSATION

(i) Single Transaction Principle

- It will be sufficient to note that the accused possessed the Mens Rea at any point
during the conduct.
- Must have early planning to cause the harm that happened.
- Where 2/more offences are committed in the course of a single transaction, all
sentences in respect of these offences should be concurrent and not consecutive.
- It is necessary that the “continuing act” occurs when Df is engaging in a wrongful
act. ie: Df moves to dispose to the body after believing that the victim is in fact
dead.

(ii) Continuing Act Principle

- The Actus Reus is done continuously before colliding with the Mens Rea. ie: At
the start MR is absent but along the way it came.

> Fagan v MPC [1969] 1 QB 439

A policeman was directing the Df to park his car. The Df accidentally drove onto the
policeman's foot. The policeman shouted at him to get off but the Df refused to move.
The Df argued at the time of the actus reus, the driving onto the foot, he lacked the mens
rea of any offence since it was purely accidental. When he formed the mens rea, he
lacked the actus reus as he did nothing.

Held: The driving on to the foot and remaining there was part of a continuing act.

(iii) Causality Principle

- But – for – test

- What caused the harm/death to the victim
- This principle is used when principle (i) and (ii) can’t be used