law cases - factual cause - R v Pagett, White, Blaue, Smith, Cheshire, Jordan, Roberts, Williams.

R v Pagett 1983 - factual cause

The defendant used his pregnant girlfriend a s a shield while he shot at an armed policeman, who fired back and the girlfriend was killed. D was convicted of her manslaughter, she wouldn’t have died ‘but for’ him using her as a shield in the shoot-out.

R v White 1910 - factual cause

The defendant put cyanide in his mum’s drink, intending to kill her. She died of a heart attack before she could drink it. The defendant was not the factual cause for her death; he was not guilty of murder, though he was guilty of attempted murder.

R v Blaue - 1975 - legal causation - the thin skull rule.

A young woman was stabbed by the defendant and was told she would need a blood transfusion to save her life but refused to have one as her religion forbade blood transfusions. She died and the defendant was convicted of murder. Although her religious belief made the wound fatal, the defendant was still guilty because he had to take the victim as he found her.

R v Smith 1959 - (breaking) chain of causation - an act of a third party: medical treatment - de minimis rule - significant clue was more than a minimal contribution to the death.

2 soldiers had a fight and one was stabbed in the lung by the other, and then carried to a medical centre, but was dropped on the way. He was given CPR which made the injury worse and he died. If he was given proper treatment, the chance of recovering would have been as high as 75%, however, his attacker was still guilty of his murder. This was cause the stab wound was the overwhelming cause of the death - it was the operative and substantial cause for the death. This means that the significant cause, the stabbing, was more than a minimal contribution to the death (de minimis rule).

R v Cheshire - 1991 - chain of causation - act of a third party: medical treatment.

The defendant shot the victim in the thigh and stomach. V had problems breathing and was given a tracheotomy, but died due to rare complications from it which weren’t spotted by the doctors. By the time he died, the original wounds were no longer life-threatening, so D was still liable for his death.

R v Jordan 1956 - act of a third party: medical treatment.

The victim was stabbed in the stomach. He was treated in hospital and then wounds were healing well, then, he was given an antibiotic but suffered an allergic reaction o the antibiotics, so their dosage was ceased. The next day, another doctor ordered that a large dose of the discontinued medication to be given. V died from the allergic reaction to the drug. The actions of the doctor were held to be an ‘intervening act’, which caused V’s death. D was held not guilty of murder, due to teh stab wound not being the significant cause of death and was therefore ‘de minimis’.

R v Roberts 1971 - victim’s own act - D causes V to react foreseeably, injury to V will be caused by D.

A girl jumped from a car in order to escape from sexual advances. The car was travelling at around 30 mph and the girl was injured through jumping from the car, so D was held to be liable for her injuries.

R v Williams 1992 - V’s unreasonable reaction - broken chain of causation.

A hitchhiker (V) jumped out of D’s car and died from head injuries from hitting his head on the road. P alleged that D attempted to steal V’s wallet. Whilst V’ act was foreseeable, it had to be in proportion to the threat, so V’s injury was not caused by D.

Full principles

R v Pagett 1983 - she would have not died ‘but for’ him using her as a shield in the shootout.

R v White 1910 - D was not the factual cause of her death.

R v Blaue 1975 - D was guilty because he had to take his victim as he found her.

R v Smith 1959 - the original attacker was still guilty because the stab wound was the overwhelming cause of teh death, it was the significant and operative cause and not ‘de minimis’.

R v Cheshire 1991 - even though the original wounds were no inter life-threatening, the defendant was still liable for his death.

R v Jordan 1956 - the actions of the doctor were held to be an intervening act which caused the death, D was not guilty of murder.

R v Roberts 1971 - the defendant was held to be liable for her injuries as the victim’s reactions to his attack were reasonably foreseeable in relation to the threat.

R v Williams 1992 - here it is not in proportion to the threat and so the injury to the victim was not caused by the defendant.