ide in his mums drink would she have died then the D is not liable (she died of an unrelated cause). If the answer is no as in R v Pagett then the D is the cause.
Legal causation requires that the D is the operative and substantial cause of the result. D does not have to be the only cause but it must be more than minimal. In R v Smith whilst there was medical negligence it was held that the V died of the original wounds – these were operating on the V when he died,
A defendant may wish to argue a novus actus interveniens i.e claim that there was another act which caused the outcome such as medical negligence, unforeseen events and the thin skull rule. In R v Cheshire it was held that medical negligence only breaks the chain of causation if the act of the doctor rendered the D’s act insignificant. A case example is R v Jordan where the doctor gave a healing patient an antibiotic which they were allergic to and this was in the patient’s notes. The treatment was held as palpably wrong and it was independent of the Ds act.
If the intervening act is reasonably foreseeable then the D is still liable as in R v Pagett where it was reasonably foreseeable that the police would shoot back at Pagett. Furthermore, the D may still be liable for injuries suffered to a victim trying to escape unless the victim’s response was daft. In R v Roberts the girl jumping form the car to escape an assault was held as a reasonable response.
Finally, the D has to take the victim as they find them meaning that the victim’s particular physical frailties or moral beliefs do not break the chain. This is illustrated in R v Blaue where the V was stabbed and then refused a blood transfusion as she was a jehovahs witness, The d was liable even though she would have survived with the treatment.
Explain the meaning of mens rea
Mens rea is the guilty mind. It is the state of mind the defendant has at the time of committing the actus reus. The actus reus and mens rea must coincide. There are various types of mens rea. The most blameworthy is intention of which there are two types: direct and indirect (oblique). Direct intent is where the defendant wants the outcome and indirect intent, as defined by Lord Steyn in R v Woollin is when the defendant did not want the particular outcome but the jury believe he was virtually certain that it would occur. For example, the jury would have needed to decide whether Woollin wanted to kill or cause GBH to his son or whether he was virtually certain that by throwing it against a wall that death or GBH would occur. The next type of mens rea is recklessness. This was established in the case of R v Cunningham and is known as subjective recklessness. It is where the defendant takes an unjustifiable risk and is aware that he is taking an unjustifiable risk as to the outcome of his actions. In Cunningham the jury decided that Cunningham was not aware of the risk of poisoning from removing a gas metre.
Explain the principle of transferred malice
Transferred malice is the principle that where som
eone carries out the actus reus of a crime but the result is slightly different to that planned then
Explain the principle of coincidence of actus reus and mens rea (Contemporaneity rule)
It is a general principle that crimes require the actus reus and mens rea to occur at the same time for liability. For example for a battery the D must apply unlawful force and have intended it or been reckless at the time. However, there are certain situations where the actus reus and mens rea may not start at the same time. It has been held that provided during the course of events they do coincide then the crime exists. This was illustrated in Fagan v MPC where the D drove onto the policeman’s foot – here we have the actus reus of battery but no mens rea as D did not realise, however, when he was asked to move he refused and so at this point he had the mens rea and as the actus reus was still continuing there was a coincidence. Another situation is where there is a series of events which the courts have held as one single transaction and if the mens re