Causation In Homicide Prosecutions
What is Causation?
Causation is a fundamental element in criminal law, especially in homicide prosecutions. It establishes the link between the defendant’s conduct and the victim’s death.
To convict for homicide, the prosecution must prove:
The defendant’s act or omission was a cause in fact of the victim’s death.
The act was also the legal (proximate) cause, meaning the death was a foreseeable consequence.
Two Types of Causation
Factual Causation ("But For" Test)
The death would not have occurred but for the defendant’s conduct.
Legal or Proximate Causation
The defendant’s act must be closely connected to the death, without any intervening events (novus actus interveniens) breaking the chain.
Importance in Homicide
Proving causation can be complex due to:
Medical complications.
Intervening acts by third parties or victims.
Delay between injury and death.
Victim’s pre-existing conditions.
Courts scrutinize these factors to determine if the defendant’s actions are the true cause of death.
⚖️ Landmark Cases on Causation in Homicide Prosecutions
1. R v. White (1910) – UK
Facts:
Defendant poisoned his mother’s drink intending to kill her. She died of a heart attack unrelated to the poison.
Issue:
Is the defendant legally responsible for her death?
Held:
No. The court held that the poison was not the factual cause of death since she died before it could take effect.
Importance:
Established the "but for" test: The defendant’s act must be the factual cause of death.
2. R v. Pagett (1983) – UK
Facts:
The defendant used his pregnant girlfriend as a human shield during a police shootout. Police shot at him, but she died from police bullets.
Issue:
Is the defendant liable for her death?
Held:
Yes. The court ruled the defendant’s actions set in motion the events leading to her death, making him the legal cause.
Importance:
Shows that causation can be established if the defendant’s actions create a situation leading to death, even if the immediate cause is third-party action.
3. R v. Smith (1959) – UK
Facts:
A soldier stabbed a fellow soldier. Medical treatment was negligent but the victim died.
Issue:
Was the defendant liable despite poor medical treatment?
Held:
Yes. The original wound was still an operating and substantial cause of death.
Importance:
Negligent medical treatment does not break the chain of causation if the original injury is still a significant cause.
4. R v. Blaue (1975) – UK
Facts:
The defendant stabbed a woman who refused a blood transfusion due to her religious beliefs and died.
Issue:
Did the victim’s refusal break the causal chain?
Held:
No. The court applied the "thin skull" rule, holding the defendant liable despite victim’s choices.
Importance:
Victim’s personal characteristics or decisions do not absolve the defendant if the initial injury caused death.
5. People v. Kevorkian (1990) – USA
Facts:
Dr. Kevorkian assisted terminally ill patients in dying.
Issue:
Is assisting in suicide equivalent to causing death?
Held:
In some cases, yes, if the defendant’s conduct is the direct cause of death.
Importance:
Expanded causation concepts in complex assisted death cases.
6. R v. Cheshire (1991) – UK
Facts:
The defendant shot the victim. The victim later died from complications during medical treatment.
Issue:
Does the medical complication break the chain?
Held:
No. The original wound was still a significant cause.
Importance:
Medical treatment must be so independent and potent to break causation, which is rare.
7. R v. Jordan (1956) – UK
Facts:
A victim stabbed was given negligent medical treatment causing death.
Issue:
Does gross medical negligence break the chain?
Held:
Yes. The court held that medical treatment was so independent it broke causation.
Importance:
Rare case where medical treatment breaks causation.
📊 Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Jurisdiction | Key Holding | Importance |
|---|---|---|---|
| R v. White (1910) | UK | But for test applied | Established factual causation |
| R v. Pagett (1983) | UK | Defendant liable for setting chain in motion | Legal causation includes third-party actions |
| R v. Smith (1959) | UK | Medical negligence does not break chain | Original injury remains cause |
| R v. Blaue (1975) | UK | Thin skull rule applies | Victim’s choices don’t break chain |
| People v. Kevorkian (1990) | USA | Assisted death can be causation | Broadens causation scope |
| R v. Cheshire (1991) | UK | Medical complications rarely break chain | Reinforces causation despite treatment |
| R v. Jordan (1956) | UK | Gross medical negligence can break chain | Exception to medical causation |
⚖️ Conclusion
In homicide prosecutions, causation is a vital and nuanced element that requires:
Factual proof that the defendant’s conduct caused death ("but for" test).
Legal analysis to ensure no intervening acts break the causal chain.
Recognition that medical negligence rarely absolves defendants unless it is extraordinary.
The "thin skull" rule that holds defendants accountable for victim vulnerabilities.
Understanding these principles helps ensure just outcomes in homicide cases by accurately linking defendants to outcomes.
RELATED Blog
0 comments