​KembaraXtra- Case Law-Michael (1840)-Causation in Criminal Law
​This case is a foundational example in understanding causation in criminal law, specifically how a defendant can be held liable for a prohibited result even when the immediate cause of that result is an intervening act.

Case: Michael (1840)Key Legal Concept: Causation
Facts:

• The defendant (D) provided a large, lethal dose of laudanum (an opiate) to his child's nurse.
• D falsely represented the laudanum as medicine intended for the child.
• The nurse, for reasons not specified but crucially not administered by her, left the laudanum on her mantelpiece.
• The nurse's five-year-old child then independently accessed and administered the laudanum to D's child.
• D's child died as a direct result of ingesting the laudanum.

Legal Issue:Could the defendant be held criminally liable for the child's death, specifically for murder, given that the immediate administration of the fatal dose was carried out by an innocent third party (the nurse's child)?

Holding:The defendant (D) was found guilty of murder.

Reasoning and Key Takeaways for Study:

1. Causation Established: The court determined that D caused the child's death. This is the central takeaway.
2. Unconscious Agent: The crucial distinction made by the court is that the death was caused through an "unconscious agent". This refers to the nurse's five-year-old child, who was too young to understand the nature or consequences of their actions. The child was acting innocently and without criminal intent.
3. Distinction from Innocent Adult Agent: The court contrasted this scenario with one where the defendant intended to use an innocent adult agent to carry out their criminal plan. While the DPP v Michael facts involve a child, the principle extends to situations where the defendant intends for someone else to administer the substance or perform the act, and that person does so without criminal intent (e.g., mistakenly believing it's harmless or medicine).
4. Intent Remains Key: Despite the intervening act of the child, D's intention to achieve the result of murder remained paramount. D had the necessary mens rea (guilty mind) for murder, intending to cause the death of the child.
5. Foreseeability (Implied): While not explicitly discussed in detail in this excerpt, the decision implies that the defendant's actions created a foreseeable risk of harm. By providing a lethal substance and misrepresenting its nature, D set in motion a chain of events that led to the death, even if the precise mechanism of administration was not what D had originally planned with the nurse.

How to Study This Case:

• Focus on the "Unconscious Agent": Understand why the child's involvement is termed an "unconscious agent" and how this differs from a deliberate act by an adult.
• Identify the Defendant's Role: Emphasize that D's direct act (providing the laudanum with intent) and the resulting death

​KembaraXtra-Case Law-Commissioners of Police for the Metropolis v Reeves (1999) HL
​I. Facts of the Case

• Victim (V) was held in custody.
• Prior Incidents: V attempted to hang himself twice on the same day.
• Fatal Incident: V subsequently hung and killed himself using his shirt through cell bars.
• Circumstances of Death: V was left unsupervised for a few minutes when the fatal incident occurred.

II. Legal Issue

• Whether the police (defendants) breached their duty of care towards V, and if so, whether any defences were available.

III. Decision of the House of Lords (Held)

• The defendant police commissioners were contributorily negligent.
• They had breached their duty of care owed to V.

IV. Key Legal Principles and ReasoningA. Novus Actus Interveniens (New Act Interfering)

• Principle: This defence is not applicable when the intervening act is precisely the event to which the duty of care was directed.
• Reasoning (per Lord Jauncey):
  • Given the admitted breach of duty of care, novus actus interveniens cannot assist the commissioner.
  • The deceased's suicide was the precise event to which the duty was directed.
  • As an actus (act), it was neither novus (new) nor interveniens (interfering).

B. Volenti Non Fit Injuria (To a Willing Person, Injury is Not Done)

• Principle: This defence does not succeed in this case.
• Reasoning (per Lord Hobhouse):
  • To qualify as an autonomous choice (free and unconstrained), the choice must be:
    • Voluntary
    • Deliberate
    • Informed
  • If a plaintiff is under a disability (due to lack of mental capacity or age), they will lack autonomy.
  • Consequently, a person lacking autonomy will not have made a free and unconstrained choice.

C. Contributory Negligence

• Principle: Damages recoverable should be reduced to reflect the deceased's contribution to their own demise.
• Reasoning (per Lord Hoffman):
  • The act of the deceased was a substantial cause of his own demise.
  • Any damages recoverable by the plaintiff should be reduced to reflect this.
• Outcome: Damages were reduced 50/50.

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

• 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.

Legal Principles (Causation)The court established important principles regarding the "but for" test and novus actus interveniens in the context of medical treatment.

1. 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.
2. 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.

Conclusion
​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.

​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

• 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.

Legal Principles (Causation)The court established important principles regarding the "but for" test and novus actus interveniens in the context of medical treatment.

1. 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.
2. 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.

Conclusion
​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.

​KembaraXtra-Case Law-Pagett (1983) CA
​Facts of the Case

• Defendant (D) shot at police officers.
• Victim (V) was used by D as a human shield against police gunfire.
• V died from three bullet wounds inflicted by police.
• D was charged with manslaughter.

Legal Issue

• Did D's actions cause V's death?
• Does V's act of self-preservation break the chain of causation?

Holding

• D was guilty of manslaughter as his act contributed significantly to V's death.

Reasoning (Per Goff LJ)

• Causation:
  • D's act need not be the sole cause, or even the main cause of the victim's death.
  • It is sufficient that his act contributed significantly to the result.
• Novus Actus Interveniens (Breaking the Chain of Causation):
  • A reasonable act of self-preservation performed by the victim,
  • which is itself caused by the defendant's act,
  • does NOT operate as a novus actus interveniens.

Key Takeaways

• "Significant Contribution" to causation is sufficient for manslaughter.
• Victim's reasonable acts of self-preservation, if caused by the defendant, do not break the chain of causation.

​KembaraXtra-Case Law- White (1910)
​Topic: Criminal Law - Causation in Homicide and Attempt
Key Issues:

• Causation in Murder: To establish murder, the prosecution must prove that the defendant's actions were the legal cause of the victim's death.
• Attempted Offences: When the intended criminal act is not completed, consideration must be given to whether the defendant is guilty of an attempt.

Facts:

• The defendant (D) intentionally administered a substance (cyanide of potassium) into the victim's (V) drink with the intent to kill.
• However, before V consumed a lethal dose, V died from an unrelated cause (a heart attack).
• The quantity of poison administered was insufficient to cause death on its own.

Decision of the Court:
The court held that the defendant was not guilty of murder but was guilty of attempted murder.
Reasoning:

1. Murder (Not Guilty):
   • Lack of Causation: The primary reason for the acquittal of murder was the absence of causation. The defendant's act of administering poison did not actually cause V's death.
   • Actus Reus: The actus reus (the guilty act) of murder requires that the defendant's conduct be the factual and legal cause of the victim's death. In this case, the heart attack was an intervening event that broke the chain of causation, and the poison was not the operative cause of death.
   • Insufficient Quantity: The fact that the poison was of an insufficient quantity to cause death further reinforced the conclusion that it was not the cause of V's demise.
2. Attempted Murder (Guilty):
   • Mens Rea for Attempt: The defendant possessed the necessary mens rea (guilty mind) for murder, specifically the intent to kill.
   • Overt Act: The defendant took a significant and unequivocal step towards committing the crime of murder by administering the poison. This action constituted an overt act in furtherance of the intended crime.
   • Completion of the Offence: While the full offence of murder was not completed due to the intervening cause and insufficient quantity of poison, the defendant's actions clearly demonstrated an intention to kill and steps taken towards achieving that intent.

Key Takeaways for Study:

• Causation is Essential for Homicide: Do not assume that intent alone is sufficient for a murder conviction. The prosecution must prove that your actions caused the death.
• Distinguish Between Actus Reus and Mens Rea: Understand that both elements are required for a complete offence. For attempted

​KembaraXtra-Case Law-Cairns (1999) CA
​Area of Law: Criminal Law – Defence of Necessity
Facts:

• The defendant (D) was driving his car late at night.
• The victim (V) climbed onto the bonnet of D's car and lay face-up against the windscreen.
• D, feeling frightened, decided to continue driving, believing it was the best course of action.
• D also claimed to be frightened by V's friends, who were following his car, shouting and gesturing, in an attempt to prevent V from remaining on the bonnet.
• D drove for a considerable distance before V fell off the car.
• Tragically, D then drove over V, causing V to fracture his spine and become paralysed.
• D was charged under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
• D sought to rely on the defence of necessity.

Trial Judge's Direction to the Jury:

• The judge instructed the jury that the defence of necessity was only available if D's action was "actually necessary to avoid the evil in question."

Outcome at Trial:

• D was convicted.

Appeal:

• D appealed his conviction.

Decision of the Court of Appeal (CA):

• The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and found that the trial judge had misdirected the jury.
• The jury's focus should have been on D's perception of the threat he faced.
• The jury were to consider whether D's actions were reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances as he perceived them.
• Crucially, the jury did not have to consider whether the threat was real or actual.

Key Legal Principle Established/Reinforced:

• In assessing the defence of necessity, the court will consider the defendant's subjective perception of the threat.
• The defendant's actions must be reasonable and proportionate to the perceived threat, not necessarily to an objectively assessed threat.

Study Points:

1. Understand the factual scenario: Visualise the events as they unfolded.
2. Identify the charge: Know the offence D was accused of.
3. Recognise the defence raised: D's attempt to use necessity.
4. Distinguish the trial judge's direction from the Court of Appeal's direction: This is the central point of the case. What did the judge say, and why was it wrong? What did the Court of Appeal say the jury should have considered?
5. Focus on the "perception of the threat": This is the critical element. D does not need to prove the threat was objectively real, only that he genuinely perceived it as such.
6. Consider "reasonableness and proportionality": Even with a perceived threat, the action taken must be a reasonable response to that threat. This is an objective element applied to the subjective perception.
7. Contrast with objective necessity: The defence of necessity does not require a situation of absolute, objective necessity.

Self-Assessment Questions:

• What were the two main threats D claimed to be facing?
• How did the trial judge instruct the jury on the defence of necessity?
• What was the Court of Appeal's primary criticism of the trial judge's direction?
• Explain the significance of "D's perception of the threat" in the context of the necessity defence, as per this case.
• What two factors did the Court of Appeal state the jury should consider when assessing D's actions?
• Does the threat have to be objectively real for the defence of necessity to be available, according to DPP v Cairns? Explain your answer.

​KembaraXtra-Case Law- Baker and Wilkins (1997) CA
​Case Name: (often cited as Baker and Wilkins)
Year: 1997
Court: Court of Appeal (CA)
Area of Law: Criminal Law - Defence of Necessity

Brief Facts:

• A couple, Baker (B) and Wilkins (W), had a child together.
• Following their separation, Wilkins was granted limited access to the child.
• During one of these visits, Wilkins failed to return the child to Baker, expressing a fear that the child had been abused.
• Wilkins then informed Baker of an intention to abscond with the child.
• Baker, upon hearing the child crying at Wilkins's residence, forcibly entered the premises.
• Baker was subsequently charged with criminal damage.

Legal Issue:

• Could the defence of necessity be successfully raised for criminal damage committed by breaking into a property, where the motive was to prevent the perceived abuse of a child and the child being unlawfully taken away?

Defence Raised:

• Necessity

Arguments for the Defence:

• Baker argued that the necessity defence was applicable due to:
  • Wilkins's refusal to return the child.
  • Wilkins's threat to abscond with the child.
  • The perceived risk of abuse to the child.

Court's Decision (Held):

• The defence of necessity was not available to Baker.

Reasoning of the Court:

• The Court of Appeal held that the defence of necessity requires a risk of immediate death or serious physical injury.
• In this case, the court found that there was no such immediate risk.
• While the situation involved potential psychological harm to the child, the court did not accept that the need to avoid serious psychological injury constituted a sufficient threat to justify the defence of necessity in criminal damage.

Key Takeaways and Study Points:

• Strict Application of Necessity: This case highlights the narrow scope and strict interpretation of the defence of necessity in English criminal law.
• Focus on Imminent Physical Harm: The defence is primarily concerned with preventing immediate and grave physical dangers, specifically death or serious bodily harm.
• Psychological Harm is Insufficient: The case firmly establishes that the need to prevent psychological harm, even to a child, is generally not a sufficient ground to invoke the defence of necessity for criminal damage.
• Distinguishing from Other Defences: Be aware of how this limitation of necessity differs from other potential defences or legal avenues that might exist in family law or child protection contexts.

​KembaraXtra-Case Law-(Pommell (1995) CA)-The Defence of Necessity
​This guide outlines the key principles and limitations of the defence of necessity as established in Pommell (1995) CA.

Case: Pommell (1995) CAFacts:

• The defendant (D) was convicted of possessing a prohibited weapon and ammunition without a firearms certificate under the Firearms Act 1968.
• D claimed the defence of necessity, stating he took the gun the previous night from an individual threatening others.
• His intention was to surrender the firearm to the police.
• The trial judge disallowed the defence, ruling that D had failed to report to the police immediately.

Legal Issue:

• Can the defence of necessity be raised when the defendant's actions, though intended to prevent immediate harm, do not involve an immediate surrender to authorities?

Held (Court of Appeal Decision):

• Core Principle of Duress/Duress of Circumstances: The underlying rationale of these defences is to permit an individual to contravene the literal wording of the law in exceptional circumstances to avert a "greater evil" befalling themselves.
• Distinction in Application: This defence is not available where the defendant commendably breaks the law with the primary intention of preventing another party from committing a "greater evil."
• Requirement for Desisting: To successfully invoke the defence of duress of circumstances, the defendant must have "desisted from committing the crime as soon as he reasonably [could]" (per Kennedy LJ). This implies an obligation to take reasonable steps to end the unlawful conduct and report to the authorities without undue delay.
• Scope of the Defence: While previous cases concerning necessity primarily involved road traffic offences, the defence is not confined to these situations. Due to its close relationship with the defence of duress, necessity can potentially apply to all criminal offences, with the explicit exceptions of murder and attempted murder.

Key Takeaways for Study:

1. Purpose of Necessity: Understand that necessity permits breaking the law to avoid a greater evil.
2. Self-Preservation vs. Protecting Others: Differentiate between using necessity for personal safety and using it to prevent harm to others. The latter situation has stricter requirements.
3. Immediacy and Reporting: The Pommell case highlights the critical importance of reporting

​KembaraXtra-Case Law-DPP v Harris (1994)
1. Case Name and Citation:

• DPP v Harris (1994)

2. Factual Background:

• Defendant: A police officer (D).
• Circumstances: D was driving an unmarked police car on police duty, covertly following another vehicle.
• Suspicion: D believed the target vehicle contained individuals planning an armed robbery.
• Offence: D failed to stop at a red traffic light to maintain surveillance on the target vehicle.
• Consequence: D collided with another car.
• Charge: Driving without due care and attention.
• Defence Raised: Necessity.

3. Legal Issue:

• Can the defence of necessity be relied upon for the offence of driving without due care and attention in these circumstances?

4. The Court's Decision (Holding):

• The defence of necessity was not available to the defendant.

5. Reasoning and Key Principles:

• Distinction in Offences: The court distinguished between different driving offences.
  • The defence of duress of circumstances may be available for a charge of reckless driving.
  • However, the present offence of driving without due care and attention was considered less severe and did not attract the defence in this instance.
• Nature of the Offence: The failure to stop at a red light, in this scenario, was described as a minor infringement. The court noted that D could have waited a few seconds and edged forward carefully.
• Requirements for Necessity: The defence of necessity would only apply in exceptional cases.
• Proportionality and Reasonableness: For the defence to succeed, the defendant's actions must have been:
  • Reasonable in the circumstances.
  • Proportionate to the necessity of the situation.

6. Importance and Takeaways for Study:

• Limitations of Necessity: This case demonstrates that the defence of necessity is not a broad get-out clause for all unlawful acts, particularly minor traffic offences.
• Specific Offence Matters: The type of driving offence charged is crucial when considering the applicability of defences like duress of circumstances or necessity.
• High Threshold for Necessity: The defence requires a compelling justification, where the unlawful act was the only reasonable and proportionate means to avert a greater harm. Simply being on police duty or having suspicions is not sufficient to justify a traffic violation.
• Focus on "Exceptional Cases": Reflect on what constitutes an "exceptional case" where necessity might apply to a driving offence. This would likely involve immediate and grave danger that could not be avoided by any lawful means.

7. Further Study Questions:

• What are the key elements of the defence of duress of circumstances? How does it differ from necessity?
• Can you think of hypothetical scenarios where the defence of necessity might successfully be raised for a driving offence? What specific factors would be essential?
• How does the concept of "proportionality" apply to the defence of necessity in criminal law?