We are ready to represent the best custom paper writing assistance that can cope with any task like Explain by reference to decided cases, how the courts have approached the requirement of causation. even at the eleventh hour. The matter is that we posses the greatest base of expert writers. Our staff of freelance writers includes approximately 300 experienced writers are at your disposal all year round. They are striving to provide the best ever services to the most desperate students that have already lost the hope for academic success. We offer the range of the most widely required, however, not recommended for college use papers. It is advisable to use our examples like Explain by reference to decided cases, how the courts have approached the requirement of causation. in learning at public-education level. Get prepared and be smart with our best essay samples cheap and fast! Get in touch and we will write excellent custom coursework or essay especially for you.
“Liability in criminal law normally requires the prosecution to establish that the accused has caused the relevant prohibited consequences or conduct to occur, for instance homocide that the accused has caused the victims death.”
Explain by reference to decided cases, how the courts have approached the requirement of causation.
In criminal law, there are two types of causation Causation � in fact, and Causation � in law. Causation in fact requires that the defendant’s conduct be a sine qua non (“but for” cause) of a result. “But for” the defendant striking the victim, she would not have died. In R v White (110) the defendant put cyanide in his mothers drink with the intent to kill her. She had a heart attack and died before she had a chance to the drink the poison. The defendant had not caused her death, and his actions were not even a “but for” cause of her death. The Court of appeal held that the defendant was not guilty of murder, because of the fact that but-for his act, his mother still would have died so he was not the cause of her death. However he was, on the evidence, found guilty of attempted murder.
Causation in law is where the defendant’s actions does not have to be the sole cause of a result but it must more than minimally contribute to it. For example, in the case of R v Pagett (18), where the defendant shot at police officers who were attempting to arrest him. He had with him a girl, whom he used as a shield, whilst shooting at the officers. The officers returned the fire, and in the process shot the girl, which resulted in her death. The defendant was convicted of manslaughter, and appealed against the conviction on two grounds, the first being that the death of the girl was caused by the actions of the police, and therefore the defendant had not caused the death of the deceased. The second was that the judge had misdirected the jury into believing that causation was a matter of law rather than fact.
Write my paper for me!!!
However, the appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, and the court held that despite the actions of the police, it was due to the defendants conduct that the girl died. It was said that a defendant ‘need not be the sole cause or even the main cause…it being enough that his act contributed significantly’. The court also stated that Pagetts act was not only a factual cause of the girl’s death but a legal cause too it was an unlawful and dangerous act, and the police return of fire was a foreseeable consequence.
The law of causation ultimately deals with the fact that the defendants act must have been an operating and substantial cause of the victims death, even though other causes may also have been operating. This is most often in issue where injury is followed by medical treatment which in turn is followed by (and perhaps causes) death.
In the case of R v Malcherek (181) the defendant stabbed his wife, who was taken to hospital and put on a life support machine, but suffered two heart failures. This in turn resulted in the victim suffering from brain damage, and the doctors had to switch the life support off. The trial judge in each case directed the jury that defendants act could be regarded as the cause of the victim’s death, and the defendant was convicted of murder. The Court of Appeal upheld this direction, saying the doctors decision did not break the chain of causation.
Where the medical treatment given is the best available, there can be little argument about such a principle, but it has been extended to cover treatment which is clearly lacking. There are obvious policy considerations here the judges do not want wrongdoers to escape the consequences of their crimes, nor do they want the courts clogged with endless medical debates as to whether the treatment given in a particular case was the best possible.
If an event intervenes between the defendant’s conduct and the result, it may be a novus actus interveniens (a new operative cause), breaking the chain of causation. For example in R v Jordan (156), the defendant stabbed the victim who died a few days later following treatment for the wound. The wound had almost healed and the immediate cause of death was the medical treatment, described as ‘palpably wrong’. The defendant appealed against the conviction for murder.
The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction, saying that the direct and immediate cause of death was a separate and independent feature (the treatment) and not the stab wound. It was suggested that where death arose from normal treatment for an injury, the injury could be said to be a cause of death. However, this treatment was not normal and so broke the chain.
Nevertheless, saying that, an intervening act will not break the chain of causation if the defendant’s conduct is still an operative and substantial cause of the result.
In R v Smith (15) the defendant stabbed the victim, causing internal injury. A medical officer, not realising the nature of the injury, gave ‘thoroughly bad’ treatment. The victim died within two hours of being stabbed but might not have died if given different treatment. The defendant appealed against conviction for murder on the basis that the treatment broke the chain.
The appeal was dismissed and it was held that the death resulted from the original wound which was still an operating and substantial cause of the death despite other operative causes.
Mind that the sample papers like Explain by reference to decided cases, how the courts have approached the requirement of causation. presented are to be used for review only. In order to warn you and eliminate any plagiarism writing intentions, it is highly recommended not to use the essays in class. In cases you experience difficulties with essay writing in class and for in class use, order original papers with our expert writers. Cheap custom papers can be written from scratch for each customer that entrusts his or her academic success to our writing team. Order your unique assignment from the best custom writing services cheap and fast!
No comments:
Post a Comment