1. Criminal Law Murder & Causation

2. What’s Actus Reus again?
Any crime may require one or more as elements:
physical conduct – e.g. appropriating property [in theft]
producing a consequence – e.g. causing death [in murder]
possibly status – e.g. being member of proscribed organisation [terrorism legislation]
Prosecution may have to prove one or more of:
an act
maybe failure to act or simply status
committed in legally relevant circumstances
and (maybe) a prohibited result

3. Homicide Homicide: family of offences linked by D causing death:
murder - requires intent to kill
voluntary manslaughter - although intent to kill, reduced through circumstances:
diminished responsibility: s.2 Homicide Act 1957
provocation: s.3 HA57
involuntary manslaughter - no intent to kill but blameworthy conduct - e.g. grossly negligently
other:
infanticide: victim is under 1 year old
causing death by dangerous driving : s.1 Road Traffic Act 1988

4. ‘Actus reus’ in Homicide
unlawfully killing a reasonable person who is in being and under the King’s Peace, the death following within a year and a day (Coke) - shortened to causing death
act must be unlawful
the soldier or executioner may have right to lawfully kill
end-of-life decisions by doctors. Do they have the right to lawfully kill?
Charlotte Wyatt - October 2004
Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] 1 All ER 821
Re A [2000] 4 All ER conjoined twins
doctors guilty of murder? Or are acts ‘lawful’ or is this (Re A) a defence? of necessity?

5. The Act in Homicide victim must be a person in being:
Malcherek 1981 – no brain stem activity – does original injury or decision to switch off life support cause death? Was V already dead? Court avoids issue – D’s act was operating and substantial cause
foetus:
not a life in being but see Abortion Act 1967
AGs Ref 3/ – stabbed mother, premature baby who died after birth. House of Lords hold D guilty of manslaughter.
also killing under the King’s Peace - excludes alien enemies in time of war
[historically] killing to take place within a year and a day - repealed by Law Reform (Year and a Day) Act 1996

6. The Act in Homicide Key element is killing another:
the defendant must be shown to have caused the death of the victim
White D does his best to poison mother but does he actually do it?

7. Causation: general requirement
Does D cause V’s death? But:
Causation is not peculiar to homicide - dealing with a general principle of criminal law:
s.18 Offences against the Person Act - D must cause grievous bodily harm
s.15 Theft Act obtaining property by deception (the deception must cause the victim to hand over the property)
strict liability - can play a part even here
Gosney 1971
no indicating signs as D comes onto dual carriageway - drove on wrong side of road – careless driving?

8. Causation - factually Does D’s contribution cause the result?
first: factually
‘but for’ or ‘sine qua non’ principle - result would not have occurred without D’s act
Dalloway 1847 – driving cart without hands on reins – child runs in front – would have died anyway
irrelevant that D’s act is not the only cause
Benge 1865 – railway maintenance negligent – irrelevant that TPs also negligent
Pagett V used as human shield by D and shot by PC

9. Causation: legal aspects
Factual causation is necessary but not sufficient
second: legal aspects:
substantial: D’s act more than minimal cause: Hennigan 1971
only necessary for prosecution to show D’s dangerous driving was a cause of the accident and was more than de minimis; not necessary to show that it was a 'substantial' cause
ordinary hazard: D might subject V to normal risk but not increase that risk - does not legally cause result
Bush 1880
puts V into hospital where catches fatal illness
Boswell 1973 Crim LR 307
chases onto electrified rail – here increasing risk

10. Causation: legal aspects
legal aspects (cont):
need not be direct: D need not touch the V
Watson 1989 – verbal abuse of elderly victim by burglar
Towers 1874 – assaults girl holding baby – baby convulsions and dies
Halliday 1889, Mackie 1973, – V dies seeking to escape assault
take victim as you find them:
Hayward 1908; Blaue V might suffer from weak heart or egg shell skull

11. Causation: key principle
if D has factually caused the result, has also legally caused it if a reasonable person would have foreseen that consequence
Roberts V’s seeks to escape from moving car - act of escaping was unreasonable but not so unreasonable as not to be foreseeable
Pagett 1983 – V used as human shield by D and shot by PC
Williams 1992 – gave lift to V – tried to rob – V jumps from moving car. Was it within the range of responses which could be expected? (Trial judge fails to give direction on causation – conviction quashed)

12. Breaking the chain:causation
Roberts 1972 and Williams in either, does V’s action break link between D’s conduct (threat) and the consequence (injury)?
Look at causation as a chain: is there any intervening act that breaks that chain so as to remove D from responsibility?

13. Breaking the chain: the victim
Novus actus interveniens - breaking the chain of causation
Victim’s actions:
Roberts 1972, Williams 1992 and escape cases
compare Blaue is principle of foreseeability in conflict with ‘taking your victim as you find her’?
Dear 1996 – V opens wounds caused by D
Kennedy 1999 Crim LR 65 - hands syringe of heroin to V - convicted - but is there causation?
Dias 2001 – D supplies but V injects heroin
Causation is matter of fact for jury – distinguish A injecting B with supplying B – but latter may still cause death where encouragement? Also Rogers 2003, Finlay 2003

14. Breaking the chain: third parties
Novus actus interveniens - breaking the chain of causation
TP’s actions: where intervention is voluntary act of responsible actor, this can relieve D of responsibility
problems where TP’s actions contribute to result

15. Breaking the chain: third parties
In Smith 1959, V is dropped and receives poor medical treatment. Does not break the chain of causation:
at time of death, original wound was still operating and substantial cause - see also Malcherek 1981
Compare with Jordan 1956 where original wound had healed and V died of intolerance to terramycin

16. Causation
Smith and Jordan can be reconciled on grounds of ‘operating and substantial cause’.
But consider:
Cheshire 1991 where V dies 2 months after shooting and because of rare complication, narrowing of windpipe. Conviction was affirmed
Pagett 1983 where V is shot by police
‘Principled tests’ are no more than a veil under which decisions are ultimately based on policy considerations.