Key Cases - Causation

There always seem to be hundreds of 'need to know' cases in Law that you rush to try and memorise, and then normally end up getting wrong anyway. Well, here are 11 of the main cases you need to know for Causation:
(Quick Key - D = Defendant, V=Victim, ‼=Comments, CoA=Court of Appeal, HoL=House of Lords)

R v White (1910)

D tried to poison his mother to gain her will. He laced her night-time drink with cyanide. Later, V was found dead, but she hadn't drunk a lethal does of her drink, but had died of a heart attack.
D acquitted of murder, but convicted of attempted murder.
‼ Causation was not established - mother died of a heart attack, not poisoning.

R v Pagett (1983)

D armed himself with a shotgun and used his girlfriend as a human shield as he fired at police. The police returned fire, and killed the girl.
Conviction held-CoA said it was reasonably foreeseeable that the police would return fire, either in self-defence or in duty.
‼ Technically the police killed the girl.
Reckless and over-action by the police
Parents successfully sued the police

R v Smith (1959)

D and V were soldiers involved in a barrack room brawl. D stabbed V twice, piercing his lung. V died after receiving poor treatment (dropped on way into medical room, had to wait while the doctors were busy, was given the wrong treatment).
Conviction held - CoA found that the wounds were still operating and substantial at time of death.
‼ Principle - if orginal wounds are still operating and substantial at time of death, D can be found liable.

R v Cheshire (1991)

V developed complications after he had surgery on gunshot wounds inflicted by D. The wounds had nearly healed, but D was convicted.
Conviction held - CoA said that the prosecution had only to prove that Ds acts contributed to the death. Ds act need not be the sole cause or even the main cause of death, provided that his acts contributed significantly to the death.
‼ If principle in Smith was followed, D would have escaped liabilty.

R v Jordan (1956)

D stabbed V and V was taken to hospital and treated for his wounds. They were healing, but V was given a drug he was allergic to. On doctor stopped the use of the drug, but another doctor gave him a large does and V died.
Conviction dismissed - Treatment described a palpably wrong
‼ Case never followed - Courts reluctant to let D escape liabilty.

R v Malcherek and Steel (1981)

D stabbed his wife in the stomach and she was put on a life support machine. A number of tests showed she was brain dead, and the machine was switched off.
Conviction held-trial judge refused to allow the issue of causation to go to a jury.
‼ If it were not but for Ds actions, V wouldn't have been in that position.

Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993)

V was a young man crushed in a crowd panic, which stopped oxygen getting to his brian, leaving him in a persistant vegitative state (PVS). 3 years later tests declared him brain dead, and his doctors asked to stop feeding him, knowing it would kill him.
Appeal granted-switching off the machines was held to be in Vs best interests.
‼ HoL said switching off the life machine was an omission to act, not an act, so it was allowed.

R v Roberts (1971)

D was convicted of assualt occaisioning actual bodily harm after V jumped out of his car after D allegedly tried to remove her coat. She thought he was going to rape her.
Conviction held-D set off chain of events, and the reaction was reasonable and foreseeable.
‼ D set off chain of events, so as long as the reaction was foreseeable and expected there is no chain of causation.

R v Dear (1996)

D slashed V with a stanley knife, severing an artery. V died from blood loss 2 das later. D pleaded provocation as a defence, and another defence was that V had committed suicide, either by reopening the wounds or not seeking help.
Conviction held-the wounds were still operating and substantial at the time of death.
‼ Courts didn't apply Roberts principle, but the Smith principle as V letting himself die was daft and unexpected.

R v Blaue (1975)

D stabbed V, piercing her lung, and causing her to loose a large amount of blood. She refused to have a life saving transfusion as she was a Jehovah's Witness, and she died the next day.
Conviction held-Although D appealed on a question of causation, the courts followed the thin skull rule
‼ Should the thin skull rule cover medical beliefs? Consider other things - phobias, medical beliefs, parental status etc

R v Hayward (1908)

D was in a condition of violent excitment. He chased his wife and threatened her. She ran from the house, into the road, and collapsed, dying instantly.
Convictions held-convicted of mansluaghter. V had a heart condition, so any combination of a strong emotion and physical exertion could have produced the same results.
‼ Unlike the other cases there was no physical act by D, but the thin skull rule still applies.