Essential reading : J Martin Criminal Law for A2 pages 15-21
The prosecution must prove that the death of the victim was caused by the
defendant’s act. In most cases this will be obvious however difficulties may arise
where there is more than one cause of death e.g. the act of a 3rd person. Defendants
can only be held responsible for a death where their acts are both a factual and legal
cause of the victim’s death.
FACTUAL CAUSATION
In order to prove factual causation the prosecution must prove two things:

That but for the conduct of D the victim would not have died as and when he
did. In other words D will not be liable for the death if V would have died at
the same time anyway! This is known as the ‘but for‘ test.
R v White 1910 (why was White not responsible for her death?)

The original injury arising from D’s conduct was more than a minimal cause
of V’s death.
This is known as the de minimis rule. In other words the acceleration of death caused
by D’s conduct must be more than merely trivial e.g. merely pricking the thumb of
some one bleeding to death!
LEGAL CAUSATION
Even if factual causation is established the judge must direct the jury as to whether
D’s acts are sufficient to amount in law to a cause of V’s death. Legal causation can
be proven in any one of the following three ways or by a combination of them:

The original injury was an operative and significant cause of death:
Here the prosecution must show that at the time of V’s death the original injuries
inflicted by D were still an operating and substantial cause of that death.
R v Smith 1959 ( the court took the view that despite a number of
intervening factors, the wound was still an operative cause of
death).
The same principle was followed in :
R v Malcherek and Steel 1981 ( What did the D’s argue?)
Consider also:
R v Cheshire 1991 (consider the facts of the case). The court stated
that the crucial question for the jury to answer was:” Has the Crown
proved that the injuries inflicted by D were a significant cause of d
1
death?”
Note :
Negligent medical treatment can only break the chain of causation if it was so
independent of D’s acts and such a powerful cause of death in itself that the
contribution made by D’s conduct was insignificant. This means that medical
treatment can only break the chain of causation in the most extraordinary casesincompetent or even grossly abnormal treatment will not be enough to break the
chain of causation.
An example of such a case might be :
R v Jordan 1956
Note:
Jordan was described in the later case of Cheshire as a very particular case dependent
on its exact facts and is therefore unlikely to be used as a precedent.
It was pointed out in R v Mellor 1996 that the burden of proof is on the prosecution so
that D does not have to prove e.g. that there was medical negligence to avoid
conviction.

The intervening act was reasonably foreseeable
An intervening act, which is reasonably foreseeable, will not break the chain of
causation. E.g. If D knocks V unconscious and leaves him lying on a beach it is
reasonably foreseeable that when the tide comes in V will drown and D will have
caused that death. However D would not be liable for homicide if V was left
unconscious on the beach and run over by a car careering out of control off a nearby
road as this could not have been foreseen.
R v Pagett 1983 ( It was reasonably foreseeable that the police
would return fir)
D will avoid liability if V responds to their conduct in a way that is so daft that it
could not have been foreseen:
R v Corbett 1996 D started to hit and head butt V following an
argument and V ran away to escape. As a consequence he fell and
was killed by a car. The judge directed that D was the cause of V’s
death if V’s conduct(running away) was within the range of
foreseeable responses to D’s behaviour.

The Thin Skull Test
Where the intervening cause is some existing weakness of V, D must take V as he
finds him. This means that if e.g. D hits a person over the head with the kind of blow
2
which would not usually kill but V has an unusually thin skull which makes the blow
fatal D will be liable for the death.
This principle has been extended to mental conditions and beliefs :
R v Blaue 1975

Failure to prove causation:
If the prosecution fail to prove both factual and legal causation of the death D will
escape liability for murder (or any other homicide) on the ground that the original
wound was not in law the cause of death. However D may still be liable for the
original act e.g. under a charge for a non fatal offence against the person.
3