Sunteți pe pagina 1din 17

Introduction Causation Ultimately, the decision as to whether Pagett the defendants conduct caused the result is one for

r the jury but in determining this issue the jury must apply the legal principles which will have been explained to them by the trial judge

1 |Page

Conclusion from Factual causation But for test Would the result have occurred but for the actions of the defendant? If the answer is yes the defendant is not liable. $actual % &egal ' () *ven if factual causation is established this does not, of itself, determine guilt. It must also be roved that the defendants conduct was the legal cause. +mission constitute $actual causation too White (even though D did not ut the oison, !um will died anyway. "o, he is not liable for murder.# Carey (in this case, D established the factual causation but not the legal causation, so D no liability#

Instan (But for the defendants omit his legal duty, the victim will not died, so factual causation is formed#

Factual Causation is Question of fact for the jury, who will determine this by reference to the ,but for test

2 |Page

3 |Page

Conclusion of egal Causation

4 |Page

Ds act must be o erating and "ubstantial .ause and do not be the only cause

!mith Deceased being carried to the medical rece tion station for treatment he was dro ed twice. (t the rece tion station he was given treatment which was subse/uently shown to have been incorrect. D still liable due to 0s original in1ure still be the substantial and o erating cause "enge Ds fault cause the accident on railway station D claimed there are faults on other eo le Cato ( re are drug for other to in1ect# it was sufficient if the rosecution could establish that 2the heroin3 was a cause 2of death3 rovided it was a cause outside the de minimis range, and effectively bearing u on the acceleration of the moment of the victims death. # v Campbell $%ndre&, # v 'ateman $(ermaine&, # v )enry $ loyd #udolf& 0ictim attac5ed by 6 eo le at first, then 5illed alone by 6rd erson later their actions in the earlier incident were a significant cause of death and that causation could be established from the in1uries sustained by the victim before 6rd ersons attac5.

Ds act still substantial even though there is others fault to the conse/uence "till liable

!eaning of "ignificant !ore than de minis (minimal cause to the result#

4oint enter rise still constitute legal cause (discussed in later cha ter#

5 |Page

Conclusion from Intervention "asic point 7.&iable Cheshire 7.&iable 7.&iable #obert Pagett

Ds act not more than de minis (significant# Unreasonable foresee the result 6rd arty must free deliberate and inform (volunteer#

o 8he main oint in on the *+s act must not more than de minis o 8o be a legal cause, the defendant9s contribution to the result must be substantial, although it need not be the sole cause. o ,ven if a result would not have occurred but for *-s acts, it is appropriate to as. to what extent *-s acts significantly contributed to the result/ o "uch as in the case of ) v "mith o If *+s act still significant, no matter how unreasonable foreseeability, * still liable (in medical intervention discussed later# o )easonable foresee im ortant in 0 esca e cases Sometime Ds act more than de minis must with reasonable foresee # v 0irdle :;<; o $o D drive dangerously o 0 being forced into ath of oncoming traffic o . crashed into 0 and both died o =o If Ds act more than de minis o 8hen he will liable if there is reasonable foresee of the second fatal collision o =owever, D conviction /uashed due to trial 1udge give no enough direction.

6 |Page

Conclusion from intervention by 1rd party 2%I by 1rd party Inde endent from Ds act 6rd artys act free, deliberate and informed intervention 7.&iable Pagett

!elf3preservation not free, deliberate &iable and informed intervention

*rug self3injection case? free, deliberate and informed 6rd arty intervention brea5 the chain of causation Defendant had created a situation in which the substance could escape, but a necessary condition of the escape was the act of a third party or a natural event (something surely will ha en# 2ot 2%I


Pagett D use 0 as human shield D shot olice >olice shot bac5 and 5ill 0. # v 4ennedy :;;@ D re ared drug for 0 0 self?in1ect ,nvironment %gency $formerly 2ational #ivers %uthority& v ,mpress Car Co $%bertillery& td D maintained a diesel tan5 in a yard which was drained directly into a river. 8he outlet from the tan5 was governed by a ta which had no loc5. 8he ta was o ened by a erson un5nown and the entire contents drain into the river. $public policy issue involved&


7 |Page

Conclusion from intervention by 5 0 esca e cause deathAin1ured Intervention by 5 0 conduct?actAomission?cause death )efuse treatment Wound reo en =ealth condition

8 |Page

Conclusion from 5+s escape+s cases 5ictim+s reaction was not so 6daft+ $reasonably foreseeable& as to ma5e it the victims own voluntary act 7nforeseeable of 5+s act not ro ortionate to the threat 0 so daft &iable #obert D seBually assault 0 on driving 0 1um ed out the car and died Williams and *avis 8otal lac5 of evidence as to the nature of the threat. 0ictim regarded so daft as 1um ed out of the car which on high s eed and this not ro ortionate to the threat during the robbing action. D threatened his three?year?old ste son 8he boy tried to run away but fell downstairs, dislocated his nec5, and died.

7. &iable

(ny articular characteristic of the victim and the fact that in the agony of the moment he might act without thought and deliberation. !eaning of reasonable foresee


8arjoram "hould the 1ury have been directed that the reasonable man in the assailant9s shoes be ta5en as being the same age and seB as the accused? 8he answer, in our 1udgment, is clearly no. 9he foreseeability test is the means by which the jury resolves that issue/ It has nothing to do with what the accused did or did not foresee, or what the accused could or could not have foreseen/ It is a straightforward :uestion of causation, and it is to be answered objectively and :uite separately from the issue of the accused-s intention/

9 |Page

Conclusion from 5+s conduct or health problem to the results 9a.e the victim as you found him #efuse victim treatment by iable "laue 8he defendant stabbed a woman who needed surgery and a blood transfusion to save her life. "he refused the transfusion as she was a 4ehovahs Witness and it was contrary to her beliefs. "he died. 8he /uestion for decision is what caused her death. 8a5e the victim as a whole erson instead of hysical one. 8he answer is the stab wound. )olland 8he defendant was involved in a fight in which he inflicted a dee cut on the victim9s finger. 8he victim failed to ta5e care of the wound or get medical assistance and the wound became infected. *ventually gangrene set in and the victim was advised to have his arm am utated. 8he victim refused and died. (there is evidence D fight with fatal action with 0, wound only one of in1ured# )ayward 7ot an issue that whether D 5new or not about the health condition of 0 if it is satisfied the 1ury that death are accelerated by the unlawful act *ear Defendant went after man and re eatedly slashed him with a "tanley 5nife. 8he victim neglect treatment But =imself ma5e it seem sto bleeding : days found dead. 8ere neglect medical not brea. ;riginal injure still substantial and operating cause 9here is no evidence show wound re3open

#efuse treatment due to cut on finger and died in the end


%bnormal state of 5+s health


8ere neglect treatment still liable $suspected re open the wound&


10 | P a g e

0ross neglect treatment $loo. li.e suicide& 5+s act unconnected to *+s act !uicide due to assault and mental disorder due to constantly be abused

2/ iable 2/ iable


*ear o +nly gross neglect brea5 chain of causation (not details given# *ear "uch as suicide due to feeling ashame to his disgraceful act on 5id but not for in1ury *haliwal o )usband constantly violence to wife (must be serious enough, if no serious, in # v *, not liable# o Wife suicide after assault by husband on that day o William< D had to cause sychological in1ury and also revented 0 to ma5e a fully voluntary decision (suicide is not voluntary# o In this case, there is evidence show that Wife forced to commit suicide due to mental disorder o W- give eBam le, D render 0 semi? conscious near railway station and 0 wal5ed ,blindly into ath of train and get 5illed People v ewis $foreign case& o 0 been shot (which evidence show that death will occur within an hour# but 0 cut his throat and died after C minutes o Wound still o erating and substantial cause o .ause of death is the blood flowing from both wound. People v ewis o "mith and =ogan- if D shoot his brain, which caused died immediately, wound will not the substantial and o erating cause, then D will not liable. People v ewis o If Ds wounding, only cause ainful o But not dangerous (death will not occur# o which 0 had 5nown it was no dangerous, and o 0 suicide to esca e ain o 8hen the suicide will brea5 the chain of causation o ("o if 0 cut throat <; wee5s later when he basically recovered, the chain will bro5en#

!uicide accidentally due to semi3concious hit by */ !uicide by throat cutting due to wound



!uicide and die instantly

2/ iable

!uicide due to escape pain which is not danger


11 | P a g e

7nlawful %ct 8anslaughter have to loo. at 6*angerousness+ besides ta.e the victim as * found <C years old?young3 died 2/ iable Carey of heart attac. due to assalt D; years old?died of 2/ iable *awson health attac. due to attempt robbery3may be no old and sic. appearance ;ld man? more than E; iable Watson years? died of heart attac.3 due to verbally assault

12 | P a g e

Conclusion in medical intervention Ds act no need be the sole cause or main cause, only significant +riginal in1ury still be o erating and substantial cause, then disregard how gross the medical negligence +riginal in1ury no more operative, medical negligence, iable Cheshire


Cheshire (in !mith case, 0 dro ed several time and given thoroughly bad treatment, but original in1ury still o erating and substantial, D liable# Cheshire (such as in Cheshire, 0 almost heal, but due to negligence in treatment is common (reasonable foresee# in human eB erience, so not so eBtraordinary negligence, D still liable# Cheshire ("uch as in (ordan situation, 0 almost heal 2no longer o erative3, =os ital give wrong medicine which 5nown to be allergic from 0 2eBtraordinary negligence3#


+riginal in1ury no more operative, !edical negligence is so gross beyond reasonable view (unreasonable foresee# thato inde endent of Ds act which o otent to cause death and o render Ds act insignificant 8he correct test as a result of .heshire is ,did the acts for which the defendant is responsible significantly contribute to the victim+s deathF

2/ iable

Warburton and )ubbersty (:;;D#

13 | P a g e

"witch off life?su

!witch off life support machine ort machine iable 8alchere. = !teel> 0?brain death caused by the wound of D Doctor switched off the life machine Wound still be o erating and substantial cause Doctor only cease to sustain life which originally ended by wound In each case the medical treatment given was normal and conventional. (t some stage the doctors must decide if and when treatment has become otiose . 8his decision was reached, in each of the two cases here, in circumstances which have already been set out in some detail. It is no art of the tas5 of this .ourt to in/uire whether the criteria, the )oyal !edical .ollege confirmatory tests, are a satisfactory code of ractice. It is no part of the tas. of this Court to decide whether the doctors were, in either of these two cases, justified in omitting one or more of the so called ?confirmatory tests/@ 9he doctors are not on trial< the applicant and the appellant respectively were/

14 | P a g e

Caught infectionAinjury in hospital iable 0owan .aught and died of (in this case, 0 vulnerable to infection due to infection in hos ital due original in1ury, liable# to original in1ury .aught and died of infection in hos ital which urely by chance (not related to original in1ury# +riginal in1ury constitute another situation which fatal 2/ iable 0owan (in this case, 1udge give eBam le such as breathing in airborne germs#


8c.echnie (in this case, due to original in1ury, hos ital cannot undergo o eration on the ulcer which cause death of 0#

15 | P a g e

Conclusion from %ct of 2ature $coincident& D render 0 unconscious and leave him by seashore who subse/uently will be drowned by incoming tide D render 0 unconscious and leave him in the scene if victim .illed by earth:ua.eAtsumani, iable # v )allett )easonable foresee the event will ha en, so liable

2/liable$author& 8he act of D did not cause the natures act to ha en 0/William< then D not liable due to these ris5s is not foreseeable, it is coincidence situation 0/William death is reasonably foresee. 0/William D is not liable, chain of causation is bro5en because the original in1ury will not the concurrent cause of death 0/William &iable ("imilar to Gowan case#

If D left 0 unconscious in the snow, But D left 0 unconscious in ar5 and a gang come along and burnt u the 0, If 0 died to the road accident ha ened during the way to hos ital. * injury wea.en 5 and 5 died of that If 0 died to the road accident ha ened during the way to hos ital. * injury not wea.en 5 and 5 died of that


2/ iable



0/William Ds act only a mere setting to the geogra hical osition of 0 where another event cause 0 death, then D not liable

16 | P a g e

17 | P a g e