- May be constituted by specific:
o Conducts – specific acts or omissions
o Consequences – specific results or outcomes of D’s conduct
Criminal damage is mainly focused on the damage and murder is mainly
focused on the consequence of death
o Circumstances – specific conditions that must be present
Eg: Lack of consent for rape
o Conduct crimes
o Result crimes - Causation needs to be established
Establishing causation
o Factual
“but for” causation – the defendant’s conduct was a necessary condition
of the result
R v White (1910) – D put cyanide in his mother’s drink but she died of
unrelated heart failure. D did not cause her death so no conviction for
murder.
o Legal
D’s act must have been an operating and substantial cause - more than a
negligible cause
R v Hughes (2013)
D was driving without a license or insurance when V crashed into
him and died. Though he committed a crime, his conduct did not
cause the resulting death.
R v Kimsey – ‘more than slight or trifling link'.
o Unbroken chain of causation
Novus actus interveniens – a free, voluntary and informed act of a third
party that breaks the chain of causation
May be broken by:
An unforeseen and unknown of naturally occurring event
o Eg: an earthquake
The victim’s acts
o Must be free, deliberate and informed and not acting in
concert with the first offender
R v Kennedy (2008) – V died after self-injecting
heroine supplied by D. D not guilty of murder.
R v Pagett (1983) – D used V against her will as a
human shield during a shoot-out with the police. V
died. NO Novus actus because not free, deliberate
and informed.
1
, o “Thin skull rule”: the defendant must take their victim as
they find them
R v Blaue (1975) – V died of wounding after
refusing a lifesaving blood transfusion on the basis
of religious beliefs. V’s beliefs do not constitute a
novus actus because D had to take V in the
condition that he found her.
o The victim’s own unforeseeable and unexpected conduct
Only if it isn’t a “foreseeable reaction to the
defendant’s conduct” and completely unexpected
R v Roberts (1971) – V jumped out of car after D
touched her inappropriately. Conduct was
considered to a reasonably foreseeable reaction.
Williams and Davies – was the response
reasonably foreseeable, given V’s
characteristics?
Medical negligence
o Only if the medical professional is so negligent in his
treatment that it overrules the original injury by the
defendant and is regarded as insignificant
R v Jordan (1956) – V given abnormal large amount
of medicine to which he was intolerant. Broke the
chain between D’s stabbing and V’s death
R v Cheshire (1991) – Medical negligence =
immediate cause of death BUT D’s actions still
significantly contributed to the death so not
excluded from liability.
o R v Malcherek – a doctor who switched off life-support
machine is not liable for death where V was originally and
criminally injured by D.
Liability for omissions
- Generally, no labiality for omissions (failure to act)
o NO general duty of rescue (“good Samaritan rule”) in England and Wales –
drowning stranger analogy
o Because, imposing liability would be difficult to enforce and causation might be
impossible to establish
o Because convicting for omissions conflicts with the principle of autonomy (can’t
be liable for not helping every single person in need all the time).
- Liability arises when duty to act
A defendant is only guilty of a crime when failing to act, where they are under a
duty to act
2
,- Duty to act if established by statutory duty
o Duty to provide for a child under one’s care (Children and Young Persons Act
1933)
o Duty to provide a safe working environment under Health and Safety at Work
Act
- Duty to act if it is a contractual duty
o R v Pittwood (1902) – gatekeeper at train station was under contractual duty to
close gate. Failed to do so and resulted in man’s death.
o Contact doesn’t need to state explicitly but needs to give rise to an expectation
- Duty to act if there is an assumption of responsibility
o Expressed or implied
o Automatic parental assumption of responsibility - special relationship
Ends when child reaches majority.
*Women are more at risk because of the social implications of motherhood. It is seen
as bad when a women refuses or is incapable of satisfying the social expectations of
her gender* it is difficult for a women to reject caring for someone else, making it
difficult for her to voluntarily undertake responsibility – does she really have a
choice?* NEIL COBB
o Gibbins and Proctor (1918)
D (V’s father) and D2 (V’s stepmother) failed to feed V, who died. Both
convicted of murder. D because he was the parent. D2 because she had
assumed responsibility.
o Evans (2009) – V dies after heroine injection, in presence of mother and half-
sister. Mother under parental duty of care. No special relationship with half-
sister so under no duty but convicted for creating a dangerous situation (she
supplied the drug)
o Stone and Dobinson (1977)
D (V’s brother) and D2 (V’s sister-in law) assumed responsibility for V,
who was anorexic, by taking her in their home, occasionally feeding her
and trying to find her doctor
Highly controversial because of the low capacity of the accused. They
were barely able to take care of themselves, let alone an anorexic
person.
o Assuming responsibility by trying to help
Ruffell (2003) – V showed overdosing signs after self-injection. D tried to
revive V and called his mother. D left V outside his house. V died of
hypothermia and intoxication. D assumed responsibility and breached it.
o Duty of doctors
Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993) - V taken off life-support (would be an
omission to continue life-support) because it was in his best interest
- Duty to act in the creation of a dangerous situation
o R v Miller (1982) – D lit cigarette, set mattress on fire, moved to next room,
whole house on fire, D charged with arson
3
, Duty created when he realized he set the mattress on fire and did
nothing to stop a dangerous situation from materializing-> criminally
liable for his failure to act
Miller principle: if a person creates a danger to others they are under a duty to stop that
danger materializing
o Evans -> half-sister held liable for creation of dangerous situation by supplying
the drugs
o The fact that the friend was convicted suggests that the courts are willing to find
a duty of care to summon help, based on supply, at least in a case where the
person taking the drugs is in some sense vulnerable.
- Duty to act if in a position of public office or law enforcement
o Dytham (1979) – police officer did nothing whilst man was beaten to death.
Convicted of misconduct of an officer.
4
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller anoukageene. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £10.48. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
