Act, Omissions, Causation and Recklessness

R v Pittwood on contractual duty, what is the context and outcome?

Context → Pittwood was a crossing gatekeeper and it was his duty to shut the gate for when a train was going past. One day, he forgot to close the gate. A train came at the cart, was driving across the level crossing and hit the driver of the car, killing him. Pittwood was held culpable for the death of the driver.

Outcome → The court argued that he was culpable, because not only was he under a contractual duty by his employers BUT to the members of the public too.

R v Stone & Dobinson on the voluntary assumption of a duty, what is the context and outcome?

Context → Stone and his mistress Dobinson had taken care of Stone’s sister (complainant), she was 61 years old and anorexic. She moved in and became very unwell and she was bedridden. They had told the landlord about their worries and they advised them to get a doctor and they tried but failed to obtain a doctor. Stone’s sister eventually died of malnutrition.

Outcome → The court argued that they were liable for her death, as they assumed the duty of care voluntarily, Stone’s sister relied on them because she was bedridden and their omission/failure to act made them criminally liable.

R v Miller on ‘Creation of a dangerous situation’, what is the context and outcome? And what was the rule that R v Miller created in regards to a ‘creation of a dangerous situation’?

Context → Miller smokes a cigarette and falls asleep, and he dropped the cigarette onto the mattress and saw that his cigarette set light to the mattress, but he walked away from the fire and slept in another room. The fire grew and damaged the house. 

Outcome → The court argued that if he was not asleep when he was smoking a cigarette, then we would argue that it was a deliberate and voluntary act. Since this wasn’t the case, he was under a duty to reasonably do something to prevent the danger when he realised. 

The important rule → The duty to do something to prevent a dangerous situation ONLY arises “AT the moment of awareness”

R v Gemma Evans on ‘Creation of a dangerous situation’, what is the context and outcome?

Context → Evans had given her younger sister Carly some heroin that she purchased. And Carly self injected herself with the heroin, took it herself but unfortunately took an overdose. She became very unwell and Gemma Evans and her mother recognised the symptoms of a drug overdose. They did take some steps to try and help. They didn't call an ambulance because they didn’t wish to get into trouble.

Outcome → Evans was charged with gross negligence manslaughter. 

What is Causation? And what two components are there?

Causation is known as proving consequences and proving how those consequences are linked to the defendant's actions OR omissions if they're legally duty to act.

The two components are -

1. Factual causation

2. Legal causation

What is the rule for Factual Causation?

To establish factual causation, we have to ask the question which is the ‘but for’ test.

The ‘but for’ test states -

• ‘But for’ the defendant’s conduct, would the same consequence have occurred at exactly the same time and in exactly the same way?

What if your answer is ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the ‘but for’ test for Factual Causation?

YES TO THE QUESTION -

• If the defendant were to complete the certain act, but it would have occurred even without the defendant’s actions (in essence, ‘yes’ to the question) then there is NO factual causation.

NO TO THE QUESTION -

• If the defendant’s actions would have not occurred naturally in the same way or same time without their intervention, then there IS factual causation AND that we must continue onwards to legal causation
  

R v Dolloway on factual causation, what is the context and outcome?

Context → He was driving a cart and wasn't holding on to the horses reins, and a child ran out into his pathway and the child was killed.

Outcome → He was not liable for the death of the child, because there was NO factual causation.

• If Mr Dalloway held onto the horse's reins, the child STILL would’ve died.

R v Broughton on factual causation, what is the context and outcome?

Context → At a festival, Broughton gave his girlfriend drugs. She had a bad reaction and died. He was convicted of gross negligence manslaughter for failing to call medical help despite her life being in danger. He appealed.

Outcome → The Court allowed his appeal, finding there was a 'realistic possibility' she would have died even with medical intervention. 90% that V would have survived if D had called for medical help was not enough to satisfy legal certainty. So he was acquitted and this broke the chain of causation.

What are the components of legal causation, after establishing factual causation?

you will need to apply the TWO subtests for Legal causation, which are -

1. Substantial/significant Cause

2. Operating/salient Cause

R v Cheshire on what substantial cause within legal causation means?

R v Chesire stated →

Substantial means more than minimal. The effect of that is that the defendant's conduct does not need to be the only or even the main cause of the consequence for it to be a significant or substantial cause.

What is the operating/salient cause within legal causation?

We have to check for NO ‘novus actus interveniens’ (this means NOTHING that has broken the chain of causation. The chain of causation is known as the defendant’s conduct chain through to the consequences and the chain is not broken).

This is context-specific and subjective as opposed to one-size fits all approach, so the rulings on operating causes will vary significantly from one case to another.

What are different scenarios in relation to the operating/salient cause? Try to list all 8 of them

1. Unforeseeable natural event

2. Reasonably foreseeable natural event

3. (independent) interventions by the complainant

4. (non-independent) interventions by the complainant

5. Interventions by (non-medical) third parties

6. Medical interventions

7. Omissions

8. Abnormal susceptibilities (the ‘thin skull’ rule)

What is the test for unforeseeable natural events (a non-human intervention) - a part of operating clauses?

Test for unforeseeable natural events -

If there are NO warnings or dangers of the natural event occurring that day, the natural event was an unforeseeable event and the defendant’s conduct CANNOT be deemed illegal or operating cause of B’s death.

Harlot’s Case on reasonably foreseeable natural events (a component of the operating clauses), what is the context and outcome?

Context → The defendant has a child out of wedlock and abandons the child under a pile of leaves in a forest and around that time, there were several birds around the area and the child was attacked and killed by birds.

Outcome → During that time, there were many birds around at the time and therefore, it was reasonable to any person that a small child on the ground in the forest would be attacked and killed. Therefore, the chain of causation was not broken because the child’s death was foreseeable.

R v Kennedy outlines the test for independent interventions made by the victim (operating clause), what is the test and what do the 3 components mean?

The independent intervention by the complainant must be a “free, informed and deliberate act” to break the chain of causation.

It means →

1. the complainant’s decision was freely chosen as it was not influenced by the defendant

2. It was deliberate, which means voluntary and NOT accidental

3. It was informed enough that the complainant was realised what they were doing and not tricked into doing it without realising

We need ALL 3 COMPONENTS to break that chain

R v Kennedy on independent interventions made by the victim (operating clause), what is the context and outcome?

Context → Kennedy had supplied heroin to the complainant as he wanted it to help him sleep, whilst he was drinking. As a result, the complainant injected himself with the heroine and Kennedy left the room and the complainant shortly died.

Outcome → The Court found that the complainant’s act of self injection broke the chain of causation, between Kennedy’s conduct of providing him with heroin and the consequence of administering the drug.

• it was a “free, deliberate and informed act” committed by the complainant, therefore Kennedy was not liable for his death.

R v Rebelo on independent interventions made by the victim (operating clauses), what is the context and outcome?

Context → The defendant had engaged with the complainant (an older man), gaslit him, manipulated him, tricked him into changing his will in his favour. The complainant was charged with his death on the basis of giving him alcohol while giving him sleeping pills or the intent to kill him.

Outcome → The complainant wasn’t fully informed that he was drinking 60% alcoholic whisky and the impacts that alcohol paired with sleeping drugs can have. The complainant did NOT have an informed appreciation as to the nature of the defendant’s nature when handing him the alcohol and he was encouraged to drink more, so the chain of causation was NOT broken and D was still guilty

R v Field on independent interventions by the victim (operating clause), what is the context and outcome?

Context → The defendant provided supplements for weight loss and had toxic side-effects, he continued supplying. Suffering from depression and personality disorders, the victim knew the supplements were bad but continued to use them. Her conditions made it less able to resist the supplement and couldn’t prevent herself from consuming it.

Outcome → It wasn’t ‘free, deliberate and informed act’. Therefore, it DIDN’T break the chain of causation.

R v Roberts outlines the test for non-independent interventions by the victim, what is the test?

“Was it the real result […] something that could have been reasonably foreseen as the consequence of what he was saying or doing?”

• It is an objective test - based on whether it could be reasonably foreseen.

• If it is reasonably foreseeable, then it does not break the chain of causation.

R v Roberts on non-independent interventions by the complainant, what is the context and outcome?

Context → The defendant offered the complainant a lift back home, he forced his hand up her clothes and tried to remove them, victim jumped out of the car and was injured.

Outcome → The jury stated that it was reasonably foreseeable that the complainant would try to get away from the defendant and jump out of the car, after attacking her when she’s trying to get home and he tries to molest her despite her protesting against it.

R v Dhaliwal on non-independent interventions by the victim, what is the context and outcome?

Context → The defendant had been psychologically and physically abusing the complainant over many years, which led to her committing suicide. The complainant had also attempted to commit suicide previously.

Outcome → The court argued that the complainant’s decision was not free from the pressure exerted by her husband. Also taking into account her previous suicide attempts, the court argued that her death was foreseeable. The suicide did not break the chain of causation.

R v Kennedy outlined the test for interventions by non-medical third parties, what is it?

“Free, deliberated and informed act”

R v Pagett on interventions made by non-medical parties (operating clause), what is the context and outcome?

Context → The defendant was resisting arrest and used his pregnant girlfriend as a human shield from the police. The defendant shot at the police and the police shot back. One of the policeman’s bullets killed the girlfriend.

Outcome → The Court argued that the police shooting back was merely “self-preservation [...] an act caused by the accused’s own act” and it did NOT break the chain of causation.

Importance → The court concluded that “an act done in the execution of a legal duty [...] does NOT break the chain of causation”

Girdler provides a test for driving offences (operating clause), what is the test?

Whether “it could have been reasonably anticipated/reasonably foreseen that a fatal collision might occur in the circumstances in which the second collision did occur.”

R v A on driving offences (operating clause), what is the context and outcome?

Context → The defendant rests the car on the shoulder of the motorway, the door of the car is open. The defendant had no hazard lights on and a lorry driver swerved into the outside lane of the motorway, crashing into the defendant’s car, killing the defendant’s friend and injuring the defendant seriously.

Outcome → The Court argued that R v Kennedy rule did not apply, according to the driving case of Girdler.

R v Chesire states the test for medical intervention (operating clause), what is the test?

R v Cheshire states that the medical treatment and negligence must be so potent in causing death, that the actions of the defendant are overshadowed.

R v Chesire on medical intervention (operating clause), what is the context and outcome?

Context → The defendant shot the complainant in the stomach. The doctors failed to notice the connections between the symptoms and complications faced by the victim and he died a few days later. His gun wound was healed, but the death was caused by the narrowing of his windpipe.

Outcome → The court held here that the treatment was made necessary by Cheshire's own conduct in shooting the victim. There isn’t a break in the chain of causation. Their treatment DIDN’T break the chain even if they didn't treat him properly.

R v BW on medical intervention, what is the context and outcome?

Context → D chucked sulfuric acid all over V. V was moved to Belgium and was medically euthanised. D was charged with murder. D argued that the doctor’s decision to help him carry out euthanasia should have been enough to break the chain of causation.

Outcome → Court disagreed, stating doctors in Belgium were acting in execution of their duty

What is the test for omissions? And what is the exception where R v Chesire may apply where omissions is extraordinary from the defendant’s actions?

The complainant failure to do something will not consist the breaking of the chain of causation.

R v Chesire provides an exceptional rule which states - If the omission and negligence is so extraordinary, or far-removed from the defendant’s act, then it will break the chain of causation

R v Blaue on omissions (operating clause), what is the context and outcome?

Context → The defendant stabbed the victim. She required a blood transfusion, or she’d die. She was a Jehovah’s witness and refused a blood transfusion, even though she would live with one.

Outcome → The Court argued that the complainant’s omission could NOT break the chain of causation, as the defendant caused her death. The Court stated that “those who use violence on other people must take their victims as they find them.” (this means the complainant’s religious beliefs included)

What is the ‘thin skull rule’ which outlines abnormal suspectibilities?

If the defendant whacks the complainant on the head and is unaware that they have a thin skull and the complainant’s skull collapses, the defendant is the cause of the death. You take your victim as you find them.

R v Hayward on the ‘thin skull rule’ or abnormal suspectibilities (operating clause), what is the context and outcome?

Context → Husband chased his wife out of the house, causing her to collapse and die. She suffered from an abnormal heart condition upon discovery.

Outcome → The defendant didn’t know about this, but applying the thin skull rule, he's liable for her death.