WJEC Eduqas A Level Law Book 1 sample

General elements of criminal liability 159 Legal causation This is tested using the impact of the injury, the ‘thin skull’ test and novus actus interveniens. 1. The injury must be the operating and substantial cause of death This test considers whether the original injury inflicted by the defendant is, at the time of death, still the operating and substantial cause of death. R v Smith (1959) A soldier had been stabbed, was dropped twice on his way to the hospital, experienced a delay in seeing a doctor and subsequently given poor medical treatment. The court held that these other factors were not enough to break the chain of causation. At the time of his death, the original wound was still the ‘operating and substantial’ cause of death. R v Jordan (1956) This case took a different stance to the Smith case. The defendant stabbed the victim. While in hospital, the victim was given an antibiotic to which he was allergic and died. The defendant was acquitted of murder because, at the time of death, the original stab wound had almost healed and the death was attributable not to that injury but to the antibiotic. The courts said that negligent medical treatment could only break the chain of causation where it is ‘ palpably wrong ’. In this context, palpably wrong means seriously wrong and so independent of the original act that it is possible to break the chain of causation. In R v Jordan (1956) , it was seen as a novus actus interveniens and the original stab wound was no longer the ‘operating and substantial’ cause of death. 2. The ‘thin skull’ test A defendant has to take their victim as they find them, meaning that, if the victim dies from some unusual or unexpected physical or other condition, the defendant is still responsible for the death. For example, if during a fight the defendant hits the victim with a punch that would not normally cause anything more than soreness and bruising but, due to the victim having an unusually thin skull, they die, the defendant is still liable for the death. R v Blaue (1975) The defendant stabbed a woman who happened to be a Jehovah’s witness. As a result of her beliefs she refused a blood transfusion which would have saved her life. The defendant argued he should not be responsible for her death as the transfusion could have saved her life and she refused it. The court disagreed and said he must take his victim as he finds them. 3. Novus actus interveniens (new intervening act) For an intervening act to break the chain of causation, it must be unforeseeable and random. It is sometimes likened to an ‘act of God’. The case of R v Jordan (1956) is an example of a novus actus interveniens . Exam Skills When applying the law on general elements of liability to a scenario-style question, it is important to define the actus reus and mens rea of each offence using legal authority to support your definition. You then need to apply the actus reus and mens rea of each offence to the facts with supporting authority and draw a conclusion. Remember you may also have to incorporate a defence if applicable. The concepts explored in this section will be needed for each of the offences studied at AS/A level. You will need to revisit this section when revising homicide, property offences and non-fatal offences. A more recent case that looks at this issue is Cheshire (1991) . Find out about this case and what the court said in relation to causation. STRETCH AND CHALLENGE