Causation and Fright Response

R v Young

Pre-existing medical conditions do not break the chain of causation

Kennedy no 2

Free deliberate and informed intervention of a second person relieves the criminal liability of the first person

Except: young, vulnerable, not fully responsible
duress, necessity, deception or mistake
if injected for them not new act

R v Leaitua; R v Ten Bohmer

A free, deliberate and informed act of a third party act of a third party will usually be an intervening act

R v Tema

Alternative to Leaitua

R v Kuka

but for the defendants' actions the prohibited consequence would or would probably not have occurred -

(also two charges of manslaughter)

R v Hawkins

Unlawful act must be causative

R v Kirikiri

Medical treatment administered in good faith is not a intervening act - 166

R v Blaue

in s 165- refusing medical treatment and turning of life support does not break causation

R v Smith; R v McKinnon; R v Myatt

Substantial and operative test: made, imported, affirmed

R v Paenga

Should only be charged once per manslaughter

R v Vaughan

Victims conduct must be an overwhelming cause of the incident to remove causation?

R v Pagett

Fright: victims response must be reasonably foreseeable- can be responsible for victim’s and third party’s behaviour if defensive response

R v Tomars

Victim in fear of violence; cause actions; reasonably foreseeable by reasonable and responsible person in defendants shoes; causation
Significant and operative test still applies

R v Lucas

Actions of the defendant caused the deceased from fear of violence to act in the way he did; kind of action reasonably foreseeable by a reasonable and responsible person in the shoes of the defendant; act contributed in a not insignificant way to his death

R v Mackie

Reasonably predictable behaviour will differ depending on the victims age

R v Majoram

Reasonable person test objective (accused age does not matter)

R v Cheshire

Negligent medical treatment only excludes accused responsibility if so independent from the accused acts that they are rendered insignificant- do not need to be sole or even main cause of death

R v Trounson

Life support is medical treatment

R v Tarei

Life support is not medical treatment as medical treatment enhances recovery prospects