Homicide Offences & Causation
621. Causation:
Factual – ‘but for’ test (R v White [1910])
Legal – ‘significant & operating’ cause (R v Cheshire)
*Significant = need not be the sole cause, just more than minimal.
*Operating = has to be ongoing at the time of death, no break in the chain.
- Pre existing Medical Condition = Egg Shell rule, take victim as you find them (Hayward [1908]).
- Novus Actus Interveniens = has to be abnormal & unforeseeable to break the chain.
Difficult for V to break the chain (Roberts), does not have to act sensibly, so long as actions are not ‘daft’ and are in a predictable reasonable range of responses.
- Medical Negligence = Dr’s cannot break the chain (Smith [1959])
But, can if negligence was ‘palpably wrong’ (Jordan) ~ Only follow this on strict facts, V making good recovery and 2 occurrences of negligence.
2. Actus Reas:
‘Unlawful killing of a person in being’
3. Charges:
a) Murder - Mens Rea = Malice aforethought, must intend death / serious bodily harm (Cunningham)
Intention:
i) Direct (Maloney) – it is aim or purpose to kill or cause serious bodily harm.
ii) Oblique – Purpose is not death, but death as a consequence is virtually certain
·
Woollin Test:
(Jury decides)
Death or serious harm virtually certain· D knows of this certainty
b) Unlawful Act Manslaughter – 3 elements (AG ref. 3, 1994)
i) Must Commit unlawful act (must be criminal offence with mens rea requirement (Franklin [1883]).
ii) Act must be dangerous (Church) = all sober and reasonable people would recognise risk of harm.
iii) Act must have caused death.
c) Gross Negligence Manslaughter – 3 elements (Adomako [1995])
i) D must owe duty of care (Wacker) = Criminal can follow Tort duty of care.
ii) D must breach duty – Must be ‘gross’. Adomako = has to fall so far below standards of reasonable person as to be deserving of conviction. AG ref 2, 99 = D doesn’t have to foresee risk of death/harm
iii) Breach must cause death
NB:// House fire e.g. = Nedrick
Driving Offence = No mens rea, should charge GNM (Nettl
