Criminal law year 1

$19.3$ Causation

• The prosecution must show that the defendant's conduct was:

  • The factual cause of the consequence.

  • The legal cause of the consequence.

$19.3.1$ Factual Cause

• The ‘but for’ test: A defendant is guilty only if the consequence would not have happened but for the defendant's conduct.

Example: R v Pagett ($1983$)

• Case Summary:

  • The defendant (D) took his pregnant girlfriend hostage and used her as a human shield during a police shoot-out. The police shot and killed her.

• Legal Finding:

  • D was convicted of manslaughter because the girlfriend would not have died but for D using her as a shield.

Example: R v White ($1910$)

• Case Summary:

  • D put cyanide in his mother's drink to kill her. She died of a heart attack before drinking it.

• Legal Finding:

  • D was not the factual cause of her death and was acquitted of murder but guilty of attempted murder.

Example: R v Hughes ($2013$)

• Case Summary:

  • D was driving without a license when another driver, under the influence of heroin, collided with his camper van and died.

• Legal Finding:

  • D's conviction was quashed because although he was the factual cause, he did not have a legal effective cause in the death.

$19.3.2$ Legal Cause

• More than one act can contribute to the consequence. The defendant's conduct must be more than a minimal cause though it does not need to be substantial.

Example: R v Kimsey ($1996$)

• Legal Finding:

  • The defendant's driving did not need to be a principal cause of death; it must be more than slight or trifling.

Example: R v Smith ($1959$)

• Case Summary:

  • D stabbed V, who later died due to poor medical treatment. The stab wound was still operating and a substantial cause of death.

Example: R v Cheshire ($1991$)

• Case Summary:

  • D shot V; V later died from complications of surgery due to the bullet wounds which had virtually healed.

• Legal Finding:

  • D was still held liable for death despite poor medical treatment because his acts contributed significantly to the death.

Example: R v Jordan ($1956$)

• Case Summary:

  • V suffered an allergic reaction to a drug in hospital after being stabbed.

• Legal Finding:

  • The medical treatment was an intervening act breaking the chain of causation, and D was not guilty.

$19.3.3$ The Thin Skull Rule

• The defendant must take their victim as they find them. If the victim has a pre-existing condition that makes the injury more serious, the defendant is still liable for the full extent of the harm.

Example: R v Blaue ($1975$)

• Case Summary:

  • D stabbed V, who refused a life-saving blood transfusion because she was a Jehovah's Witness.

• Legal Finding:

  • D was still liable for her death; the victim's religious beliefs did not break the chain of causation.

Life-Support Machines

• Turning off a life-support machine after a patient is declared brain dead does not break the chain of causation (R v Malcherek ($1981$)).

$20$ Mens Rea

Intention

• Gross negligence can lead to manslaughter (R v Adomako ($1994$)). This requires a very high degree of negligence beyond mere civil negligence.

Types of Negligence / Fault

• Negligence: Failing to meet the standard of a reasonable person.

• Recklessness: Awareness of the risk of consequences and choosing to ignore it.

  • Subjective Recklessness: In R v Cunningham ($1957$), it was established that the defendant must have foreseen the risk and taken it anyway.

• Transferred Malice: Can apply if the defendant has the intent to commit an offense against one victim but unintentionally harms another.

  • Example: R v Latimer ($1886$).

Strict Liability

• Strict liability offences do not require mens rea for at least one aspect.

• Case Example: Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd ($1986$).

Absolute Liability

• No mens rea required and the actus reus need not be voluntary.

• Example: R v Larsonneur ($1933$).

• Example: Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent ($1983$).

$22$ Non-fatal Offences Against the Person

Common Assault

• Assumed through two main categories: assault and battery.

• Assault: Causes fear of immediate, unlawful force.

  • Legal Definition: "An act which causes the victim to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force."

  • Forms of Assault: Can be committed through words or even silence (R v Ireland ($1997$)).

• Battery: Actual infliction of unlawful force.

  • Legal Definition: "The application of unlawful force to another person."

  • Indirect Battery: Battery can be committed indirectly, such as through a trap or a tool (DPP v K ($1990$)).

Actus Reus of Assault and Battery

• Assault: No touching required, only fear of immediate violence.

• Battery: Must include actual touching or force, even the slightest.

Case Examples:

• R v Constanza ($1997$): Letters can constitute assault if they induce fear of violence.

• R v Thomas ($1985$): Touching clothing can constitute battery.

• Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner ($1968$): Battery can occur through a continuing act.

Mens Rea of Assault and Battery

• Assault Option $1$: Intention to cause fear of immediate violence.

• Assault Option $2$: Recklessness regarding such fear.

• Battery: Intention to apply unlawful force or recklessness towards that force.

Offences under OAPA $1861$

• S. $47$ OAPA $1861$: Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (ABH)

  • Actus Reus: An assault or battery that causes actual bodily harm.

  • ABH Definition: "Any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim" (R v Miller ($1954$)). It can include temporary loss of consciousness (T v DPP ($2003$)).

• S. $20$ OAPA $1861$: Maliciously wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm (GBH).

  • GBH Definition: "Really serious harm" (DPP v Smith ($1961$)).

• S. $18$ OAPA $1861$: Specific intent GBH.

  • Requires the specific intent to cause grievous bodily harm or to resist/prevent arrest.

Summary of Key Concepts

• Common Assault: Intentional or reckless fear of violence.

• Battery: Intentional or reckless application of force.

• S. $47$ OAPA: Assault/battery causing actual bodily harm.

• S. $20$ OAPA: Malicious infliction of bodily harm without requiring specific intent.

• S. $18$ OAPA: Specific intent

Factual Cause

1. R v Pagett ($1983$)

   • Case Summary: The defendant (D) used his pregnant girlfriend as a human shield during a shoot-out with police, who shot and killed her.

   • Legal Finding: Convicted of manslaughter; she would not have died but for D’s conduct.

2. R v White ($1910$)

   • Case Summary: D poisoned a drink for his mother, but she died of a heart attack before consuming it.

   • Legal Finding: D was not the factual cause of death (acquitted of murder, guilty of attempted murder).

3. R v Hughes ($2013$)

   • Case Summary: D drove without a license; a driver under the influence of heroin collided with him and died.

   • Legal Finding: Conviction quashed because, though a factual cause, D was not a legally effective cause of death.

$19.3.2$ Legal Cause

1. R v Kimsey ($1996$)

   • Legal Finding: Conduct must be more than a minimal cause; does not need to be substantial (more than slight or trifling).

2. R v Smith ($1959$)

   • Case Summary: D stabbed V. V died following poor medical treatment, but the original wound was still a substantial cause of death.

   • Legal Finding: Chain of causation was not broken.

3. R v Cheshire ($1991$)

   • Case Summary: D shot V; V died from surgical complications long after wounds had virtually healed.

   • Legal Finding: D remained liable as his acts contributed significantly to the ultimate death.

4. R v Jordan ($1956$)

   • Case Summary: V suffered an allergic reaction to medication in the hospital after a stabbing.

   • Legal Finding: Medical treatment was palpably wrong and constituted an intervening act, breaking the chain of causation.

$19.3.3$ The Thin Skull Rule

1. R v Blaue ($1975$)

   • Case Summary: V refused a blood transfusion on religious grounds (Jehovah's Witness) after being stabbed by D.

   • Legal Finding: D must take the victim as they find them; religious beliefs did not break the chain of causation.

Life-Support Machines

1. R v Malcherek ($1981$)

   • Legal Finding: Disconnecting a life-support machine for a brain-dead patient does not break the chain of causation.

$20$ Mens Rea

1. R v Adomako ($1994$)

   • Legal Finding: Established gross negligence manslaughter; requires negligence beyond mere civil standards.

2. R v Cunningham ($1957$)

   • Legal Finding: Defined subjective recklessness; the defendant must foresee the risk and choose to take it anyway.

3. R v Latimer ($1886$)

   • Legal Finding: Application of transferred malice; intent toward one victim transfers to an unintended victim.

Liability Types

1. Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd ($1986$)

   • Legal Finding: Illustrates strict liability; mens rea is not required for at least one element of the offence.

2. R v Larsonneur ($1933$) & Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent ($1983$)

   • Legal Finding: Examples of absolute liability where actus reus may be involuntary and no mens rea is required.

$22$ Non-fatal Offences

1. R v Ireland ($1997$)

   • Legal Finding: Assault can be committed through words or even silence.

2. DPP v K ($1990$)

   • Legal Finding: Battery can be committed indirectly (e.g., through a trap).

3. R v Constanza ($1997$)

   • Legal Finding: Written letters can constitute an assault if they induce fear of immediate violence.

4. R v Thomas ($1985$)

   • Legal Finding: Touching a person's clothing is sufficient to constitute battery.

5. Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner ($1968$)

   • Legal Finding: Battery can be a continuing act (e.g., parking a car on a policeman's foot and refusing to move).

6. R v Miller ($1954$)

   • Legal Finding: Defined ABH as any hurt calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim.

7. T v DPP ($2003$)

   • Legal Finding: Temporary loss of consciousness can constitute ABH.

8. DPP v Smith ($1961$)

   • Legal Finding: Defined GBH as "really serious harm."