Legal Case Study

Is Jacob the cause of Hannah's death? Claimant: Hannah Defendant: Jacob

R v White (1910) demonstrates an example of causation. The defendant was charged with murder because he placed cyanide into his mother's drink but evidence showed that her death was due to heart failure and not the cyanide. However, he had the intention to kill his mother. The defendant was found guilty of attempted murder. He was not the cause of her death, she would have died anyway. Sine qua non causation refers to setting in motion a chain of events that sooner or later will lead to a harmful result (Ormerod, 2008). A common test for causation in fact is the 'but for' test (White,1910). If it is true that 'but for' the act of the accused, in this case Jacob striking Hannah on the top of her head with a hammer, Hannah, the victim, would not have suffered the same consequences, then there is causation (Padfield, 2010). In other words what would have happened had the defendant not acted in the unlawful that they did? If the harm would have still occurred at the same time, then the act cannot have caused the damage in law (Herring, 2007). The facts of the case do not indicate of an illness or disorder that may have caused Hannah's death rather than the blow to her head. In this case, it is reasonably foreseeable that a person will die as a result of a blow to the head, particularly as the hammer broke (Clarkson, 2010). If the death had not been reasonably foreseeable, the law would still consider Jacob liable if Hannah had suffered from a disorder that made her vulnerable. The thin skull rule embodies taking the victim as they are, no matter what may be wrong with them or what beliefs they may hold or lives they may lead that could affect their treatment. (Blaue,1975). In this case, there appears to causation in fact as if it hadn't been for Hannah being struck by the hammer she wouldn't have died. Additionally causation in law whereby the defendant's behaviour must more than minimally contribute to the consequences is fulfilled (Pagett, 1983). Nothing broke the chain of causation such as an 'act of God', an unpredictable response from the victim or an assumption of liability from a third person. These are examples of novus actus interveniens (Herring, 2007) which can interrupt in the aim to show a causal link between actions and consequences. The first, an 'act of God' needs to be a freak occurrence of nature that is unpredictable before the courts will consider such an event (Empress Car Co v National Rivers Authority, 1998). If the victim contributes to his own death, then the law may consider that certain acts break the chain of causation, unless such acts were reasonable foreseeable (Ormerod, 2008). In Roberts (1971) it was considered that the victim's reaction to jump out of a car and becoming injured was reasonably foreseeable as her assailant was attacking her. A third party will assume responsibility for the consequences that follow if the acts are 'free, deliberate and informed' (Pagett, 1983). Therefore if someone else had attacked Hannah after Jacob, the court would need to decide if they were liable for her death. However, it can be concluded that in this case novus actus interveniens did not exist. Jacob striking Hannah on the top of her head was the operative and substantial cause of her death (R v Smith, 1959). There wasn't an intervening event that was independent of Jacob's actions (R v Cheshire, 1991). In conclusion, from the facts offered in this case, causation can be shown. Jacob is the cause of Hannah's death.

Does Jacob have the mens rea for murder? The mens rea refers to a specific state of mind of the accused (Clarkson et al, 2010). The mens rea for murder is proof of intention to kill or intention to cause grievous bodily harm (Childs, 2005). First it is necessary to establish if Jacob's actions fulfil the criteria under the definition of murder. The act must be deliberate, unlawful and a significant cause of death (Padfield, 2010). Jacob's act is deliberate and unlawful and as we have already established, causes the death of Hannah. Additionally, the mens rea includes with malice aforethought, with the intention to cause grievous bodily harm or death. Therefore, Jacob would need to have had a conscious intent to kill Hannah (Ormerod, D (2008). Malice aforethought embodies intention which comprises wanting to cause grievous bodily harm or death and behaving in a certain way in which the jury can conclude the outcome was virtually certain to occur (Vickers,1957). This latter definition means that a jury can infer intent even if the defendant didn't mean for the victim to die just as long as death is virtually certain to occur or is a natural consequence of the defendant's actions (Herring, 2007). Therefore, it is possible to commit a murder not only without wishing the death of the victim but without the least thought that this might be the result of the assault (R v Cunningham 1957). In R v Nedrick (1986) the appellant had a grudge against a woman and poured paraffin through her letterbox. The house burnt down and a child died. The appellant knew it was highly probable someone could die though he did not want that result. He only wanted to frighten her and not kill her. He was convicted of murder. It was essential to show that the defendant appreciated that the consequence of death as a result of putting paraffin through a letterbox was a virtual certainty. The court of appeal substituted a conviction for manslaughter.

The mens rea for murder can be simple to demonstrate in some cases; it can be clear that a defendant's actions amount to a direct attack upon his victim but it can be that a defendant will commit a dangerous act such as Jacob's when he struck Hannah on the top of her head with a hammer, and as a result someone dies (Padfield, 2010). Jacob's main purpose or motive may not have been to actually harm Hannah. According to Nedrick (1986) the jury need to ask themselves two questions; How likely was the result of the defendant's voluntary act? Did he foresee the consequence? If Jacob did not appreciate that death or really serious harm was likely to occur as a result of his act, he cannot have intended to bring it about. Perhaps he thought that the risk to which he was exposing Hannah was only slight. Then the jury may conclude that he didn't intend to kill her (Ormerod 2008). However, if the jury consider that Jacob recognised that death or serious harm would be virtually certain as a result of his actions despite him not having the desire to kill, they would be likely to find him guilty of murder (Clarkson et al, 2010). Therefore the law is that the jury can infer actual intention (to cause at least GBH) from what was objectively foreseeable by the reasonable man along with the rest of the evidence and the minimum task for prosecution is to prove an intention to cause really serious harm (Herring, 2007). However, confusion over intention and foresight has left the courts with difficulties when examining the mens rea for murder (Padfield, 2010). When considering the case of Woollin (1998), the decision in Nedrick (1986) was endorsed. The appellant threw his three month son on to a hard surface and the child died. The jury needed to consider if the appellant had the intention to do serious harm, was serious harm/death a virtual certainty? Did the defendant appreciate that? The same questions were asked as in Nedrick (1986) as the appellant insisted he did not mean to kill the child. However, confusion arose over the judge's summing up adding substantial risk into the intention of murder. An appeal was granted by the House of Lords. Therefore it is necessary to show that Jacob realised that the death of Hannah was a virtual certainty as a consequence as despite the limited facts of the case, it can be assumed that he didn't wish to kill her (though this is not stated). In the case of Hyam (1975) the defendant put burning newspaper through the letterbox of a love rival causing the death of her two children. She also claimed she hadn't meant to kill but she had foreseen death or grievous bodily harm as a result of her actions. As she knew that her actions were likely to cause death she had the mens rea for murder. In that case again it was highlighted that foresight may not mean the same as intention but still the law maintains that if death is foreseen, the criteria of the mens rea for murder is fulfilled. In conclusion from the facts offered in this case, if Jacob didn't desire the death of Hannah, the fact that he hit her over the top of her head with a hammer that broke would lead to questioning in relation as to whether he had foreseen her death as a result of his actions. That would show he had the mens rea for murder.

Bibliography

Ashworth, A (2009) Principles of Criminal Law, Oxford: OUP R. v Blaue [1975] 1 W.L.R. 1411 R. v Cheshire [1991] 3 All ER 670 Childs, P (2005) Nutcases: Criminal Law, Andover: Sweet and Maxwell Clarkson, C. M. V, Keating, H. M, Cunningham, S.R (2010) Criminal Law: Texts and Materials, Andover: Sweet and Maxwell R.v Cunningham [1957] 2 Q.B. 290 Empress Car Co v National Rivers Authority [1998] 1 All ER 481 Herring, J (2007) Criminal Law, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan Hyam v DPP [1975] AC 55 R. v Nedrick (1986) 83 Cr.App.R. Ormerod, D (2008) Smith and Hogan Criminal Law, Oxford: OUP Padfield, N (2010) Criminal Law, Oxford: OUP R. v Pagett [1983] 76 Cr. App. R. 279 R. v Roberts [1971] 56 Cr App R 56 R. v Smith [1959] 2 All ER 193 R. v Vickers [1957] 2 QB 664 R. v White [1910] 2 K.B.124, CCA. R. v Woollin [1999] A.C. 82.