- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Cheshire (1991) CA - Case Summary & Key Principles
This case deals with causation in murder, specifically whether intervening medical negligence breaks the chain of causation.
Facts
The court found that the medical mistreatment, while the immediate cause of death, was not so extraordinary or unusual as to be considered a novus actus interveniens. D's initial act of shooting V remained a substantial and operating cause of death, thus establishing causation for murder.
This case deals with causation in murder, specifically whether intervening medical negligence breaks the chain of causation.
Facts
- D shot V: V sustained gunshot wounds to the leg and stomach.
- Two months later: V's wounds were no longer life-threatening.
- Medical complication: A rare complication arose due to the mistreatment of a tube inserted in V's throat.
- V choked to death: This complication directly led to V's death.
- D held guilty of murder.
- Insufficiency of D's Contribution:
- Key Phrase: "Even though negligence in the treatment of [V] was the immediate cause of his death, [exculpation follows only if] ... they regard the contribution made by [D's} acts as insignificant' (per Beldam LJ)."
- Meaning: For intervening negligence to break the chain of causation, D's original contribution to V's death must be considered insignificant. In this case, the gunshot wounds were still a material cause of death, making D's contribution significant.
- Medical Treatment as a Novus Actus Interveniens:
- Key Phrase: "Where medical treatment seeks to repair harm done by D's acts, 'it will only be in the most extraordinary and unusual case that such treatment' will amount to a novus actus interveniens."
- Meaning: Generally, reasonable medical treatment aimed at curing the injuries inflicted by the defendant will not break the chain of causation, even if it is negligent.
- Exception: Negligence will only become a novus actus interveniens in "most extraordinary and unusual" circumstances, implying a very high threshold for this to occur.
The court found that the medical mistreatment, while the immediate cause of death, was not so extraordinary or unusual as to be considered a novus actus interveniens. D's initial act of shooting V remained a substantial and operating cause of death, thus establishing causation for murder.
0 Comments