1 / 16

Criminal Law Murder & Causation

Criminal Law Murder & Causation. 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]

misu
Download Presentation

Criminal Law Murder & Causation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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. beingmember 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 961 - 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 3/94 1997 – 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 1908 - 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 1968 - obtaining property bydeception (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 1983 - 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 1975 - V might suffer from weak heart or egg shell skull

  11. Causation: key principle • Key principle: • if D has factually caused the result, has also legally caused it if a reasonable person would have foreseen that consequence • Roberts1972 - V’s seeks to escape from moving car - act of escaping was unreasonable but not so unreasonable as not to be foreseeable • Pagett1983 – 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 • Roberts1972 and Williams 1992 - 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: • Roberts1972, Williams 1992 and escape cases • compare Blaue 1975 - 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.

More Related