Q: Discuss how far the actions of the victim or a third party can break the chain of causation in result

crimes. Critically assess how far the law in this area is fair and consistent.

This statement requires discussion on the importance of law of causation along with the aspects of
factual and legal causation. Further, the answer involves discussion on breaking of the chain of causation
and to which extent? The clause 17 of the Draft Criminal Code (1989) will also be assessed with the
common law rules and whether or not the law on causation is consistent with respect of the intervening
acts of third party?

Crimes are divided into two types: conduct crimes, where only actus reus is involved and result crimes,
where an act leads to a harmful result. The element of causation is important because it establishes the
connection between the criminal harm caused by the accused and accused’s malice intention. In the
absence of causation, there would be nothing to link. The prosecution easily establishes and proves a
charge due to causation.

Defendant should be the factual and legal cause of harm as explained, factual causation involves “But
for test” that the harm or injury would not have happened but for the defendant’s mistake whereas the
legal causation is when the defendant’s act was the only reason of the harm caused and was operative.
In the case of R v Smith, it was held that if the second wound was more serious than original wound and
the death is caused due to that wound. The original wound was still operative cause of death then death
could be properly the result of that wound.

Causation is important as Clause 17 of Draft Criminal Code (1989) states that a person will be liable for
causing a result: if he/she does an act which is of more serious nature and would amount to contribution
to its occurrence and if he/she omits to do act which might have negated the chance of occurrence. The
contribution of defendant’s acts or omissions should be present in order to hold the defendant liable for
the crime.

In the light of R v Pagett and Cheshire, it can be observed that the third parties and victim’s actions can
break the chain of causation to some extent. In both these cases, the chain of causation was not broken
because the defendant’s act was considered to be the reason of death (Pagett) and in the suicidal
attempt’s scenario where the victim’s reaction aggravated the situation which lead to death (R v Dear).

An exception to causation, the Nous Actus Interveniens (NAI), the intervening act that breaks the chain
of causation. In some circumstances such as, multiple defendants involved and operative cause, such
factors can break the chain of causation.

In the case of R v Blaue, it was held that the operative cause of death was wound not the victim’s
refusal as the Thin Skull Rule states that the victim’s sensitivity and weakness is not sufficient to break
the chain of causation and defendant would be still liable for his act. Such a situation where victim’s
reaction is involved, it is necessary to determine that the reaction was reasonable or not which could be
determined by the reasonable foreseeability principle as in the case of R v Roberts, where the victim
over reacted to the situation faced where a reasonable man would not do. It was held that victim’s
reaction was inconsistent with reasonable foreseeability. There is a strict criteria and the chain of
causation could not be broken easily. However, there are some scenarios where chain of causation can
be broken but with limitations, as in the case of R v Kennedy, where the mere supply of drugs was
enough to break chain of causation because of self-administration of drugs by victim. The guilty could be
proved by managing drugs along with supply of drugs.

In breaking the chain of causation, the supervening events of third parties and victim’s actions and
reactions can amount to break the chain of causation, in rare scenarios the chain of causation can be
broken. In the cases mentioned, only in Kennedy the chain of causation was broken. It can be likely to be
said that this area of law has strict criteria for breaking the chain of causation. The law on causation
actually is a strict approach and of course not that much consistent with the practical issues. The law on
this aspect is certain and limited, nothing is vague but the approach is too strict and it is likely to be said
that in some scenarios, third party’s actions are more serious in nature than the original injury, it is not a
simple thing to prove that’s why criteria is strict. To some extent, it is fair enough so that anyone would
not be wrongfully charged or due to uncertainty of law. Strictness is justified to some extent.