Causation is the relationship between conduct and result. In criminal law, it is known as the actus reus (an action) from which the injury or other effect which has arised it is combined with mens rea (guilty mind) to summarise the elements of guilt. Causation only applies where a result has been achieved. It is divided into two different categories, factual (but for test) and legal (thin skull test) causation.
Factual causation is implied by the ‘but for test’, the defendants must have the mental capacity of carrying out the crime. ‘But for the actions of the defendant, would the result have occurred?’. If the answer is no then the defendant is held liable as it was a factual cause of the result.
Legal causation is interpreted by the ‘chain of causation’, the prosecution must prove that there was no novus actus interveniens (an intervening act), which broke the chain of causation
Legal causation can also amount to the ‘De minimis principle’ which means it is to small to be meaningful.
Novus actus interveniens (a new intervening act) could break the legal chain of causation and relieve the defendant of responsibility. The chain of causation between the defendants act and the resulting consequences will be broken if another unforeseeable act occurs and if “the second cause is so overwhelming as to make the original act merely part of history” (Lord Parker CJ in R V Smith [1959] 2 QB 35).
The prosecution (Sophie) must prove that there was no novus actus interveniens, which broke the chain of causation but if it is not established due to the existence of an intervening event which breaks the chain, the defendant (Callum and Nigel) cannot be said to have caused the result.
In order to establish the actus reus of murder, Sophie would need to prove that Nigel’s guilty mind allowed her to purchase Dr. Cure and overdose.
Offences are classified by their seriousness the three offences are indictable (most serious), either way and summary offences.
Indictable offences are the most serious offences, they include; murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, and wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent. All these offences have high penalties upon conviction. Therefore, they must always be tried in the Crown Court with a jury.
Summary offences are less serious than indictable offences. These include; driving offences, assault and battery. They all carry lighter penalties therefore, they are tried in the Magistrates Court without a jury. The maximum penalties offered by magistrates include fines, community service and maximum of 6 months in prison. A defendant charged with a summary offence does not have the right to trial by a jury.
Either way offences are those offences in between indictable and summary. The facts of the incident will determine how serious it is. These often include theft, assault wounding and burglary. If the defendant is charged with an either way offence they can be tried in the Crown court or Magistrates court.
Unlawful act manslaughter is when the defendant intentionally commits an unlawful act which a reasonable person would recognise exposes the victim to the risk of some harm and the victim dies as a result. The offence of unlawful act manslaughter was defined by the Court of Appeal in the case of Larkin (1944) 29 Cr App R 18. Where the defendant was convicted manslaughter. Humphreys J explained how liability for manslaughter arises through an unlawful act, where the act which a person is engaged in performing is unlawful, then if at the same time it is a dangerous act which is likely to injure another person and the doer of the act causes the death of the person then he is guilty of manslaughter.
The elements of unlawful act manslaughter are an intentional act, the act is unlawful, the act is objectively dangerous and the act causes death.
If Nigel Tranter is charged with unlawful act manslaughter. It would emphasise that he was involved in supplying diet pills which contained chemicals – DNP (toxic substance) and optimum from China. Although he may not have intended to kill Sophie he was involved in the commission of an unlawful act which caused death.
The jury will firstly be asked to consider that the defendant (Nigel) intentionally performed an act. The act committed and not the resultant death. In order to be guilty of unlawful manslaughter, Nigel must have engaged in a positive act. A neglect omission will not be enough. In the case of Lowe [1973] QB 702, the defendant neglected his child, s.1(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, which resulted in the child’s death. This was not enough for a conviction for unlawful act manslaughter on the basis of a deliberate omission. It is difficult to identify deliberate acts and omissions which both have the same result, the death of a person.
The jury would also have to consider that the act is unlawful. The mens rea and actus reus will have to be considered. The unlawful act must amount to a criminal offence.
Another requirement the jury would have to consider is that the act must be dangerous. In the case of Larkin (1944), Humphreys J held that ‘a dangerous act’ is ‘an act