Criminal Law - Legal Causation and Mens Rea

Taken from Week 3 lecture notes.

Legal Causation - Intervening acts and Smith [1959]

Intervening acts do not break the chain of causation if the original wound is an operating and substantial cause of death.

Smith [1959] - man was stabbed, dropped twice on the way to medical help, and died. D was held liable, since the stab wounds were still acting as the primary cause of death at the time.

Legal Causation - Intervening acts in Cheshire [1991] and the confirmed rule.

Cheshire [1991] saw V get shot, and died after a medically negligent operation which occurred as a result of D attacking V. BUT V was only receiving the operation due to the attack.

They concluded D’s acts need not be the sole or main cause of harm (death) for D to be held liable.

Legal Causation - Jordan (1956) and unrelated intervening acts.

Jordan (1956) - D stabbed V, who was recovering well in hospital when V contracted an unrelated infection, for which the treatment was very inappropriate and V died. D was not liable since the stab wound had mostly healed, and did not cause the death.

This is an exceptional rule, and applied sparingly. The intervening act must be unrelated to the initial harm for it to override liability.

Legal causation - Discontinuation of life support and Malcherek and Steel [1981]

Medically appropriate discontinuation of life support does not break the chain of causation from the original act.

Malcherek and Steel [1981] - two cases heard together, where D1 and D2 seriously injured V1 and V2. Vs were put into induced comas and put on life support, which were later turned off. Their deaths still held Ds liable.

Legal Causation - Blaue [1975] and its Rule on victim omissions

Blaue [1975] - V refused consent for medical treatment (omission) after being stabbed by D, and although the death could have been avoided via medical treatment, the liability for V’s death remained with D.

The Blaue Rule is such than omission from the victim does not break the chain of causation. This is a risk taken on by D when acting to harm V. In short, take the victim as they are.

Legal Causation - Victim acts breaking causation and Kennedy [2007]

The Kennedy Rule assumes free will for informed adults, meaning V acts can break the chain of causation. This excludes young or vulnerable Vs, as well as situations of duress, necessity, deception, or mistake.

Kennedy [2007] - V asked D for drugs, who supplied V with heroin. V injected himself, and died - D was not held liable for the death, since V made a voluntary and informed decision to inject himself with heroin - the intervening act.

Legal causation - Remote victim acts and Roberts (1971)

Acts “so daft, or so unexpected that no reasonable man could be expected to foresee it” break the chain of causation.

Roberts (1971) - D was driving V when he started to molest her, causing her to jump from the car and injure herself. In this case, her actions were foreseeable and didn’t break the chain of causation (especially as it occurred under duress).

Legal causation - Euthanising victims in Wallace [2018]

Wallace [2018] saw a Belgian national have acid thrown on him after breaking up with D. He suffered catastrophic injuring (paralysis from the neck down, losing eyesight in one eye, leg amputation) as a result, and chose to travel to Belgium to be euthanised lawfully under Belgian law. It was an informed decision made possible from the attack, but the Crown Court jury found despite the death being inextricably linked, D’s attack did not cause the decision for death.

Mens Rea

This refers to some mental blameworthiness (the ‘guilty mind’), such that D intended to cause the harm, or could foresee it, yet still decided to act.

Types of MR

Intention, recklessness, Negligence, Dishonesty, Gross Negligence, etc. These are NOT crimes, but merely aspects of MR required to identify a criminal offence.

MR - Inetn