Causation and Unlawful Act Manslaughter
In regard to criminal liability, certain elements must be satisfied for an individual to be found guilty of an offence. The accused must have been responsible for conduct which is otherwise prohibited by the law; this is referred to as the ‘actus reus’ of a crime. However this alone is insufficient for conviction, unless it concerns a crime which is of strict liability, like Harrow London BC v. Shah . Alongside the ‘actus reus’ element of a crime there is also a requirement for the accused to have the appropriate state of mind known as the ‘mens rea’. Both ‘actus reus’ and ‘mens rea’ need to be apparent to create criminal liability. Another dimension to criminal liability is that not all ‘actus rei’ require an ‘act’, meaning it is possible for the accused to be liable for simply omitting/failing to act just as the defendant found in DPP v. Santana-Bermudez .
The area of law concerning this question is causation which simply means that the defendant’s actions must have caused the required consequence. ‘It is necessary to show not only that the defendant performed an act, but that the act caused a particular consequence.’ At first glance this seems straightforward, if ‘X’ broke ‘Y’s neck; it would be difficult for ‘X’ to deny that he/she was the cause of ‘Y’s death.
However in other circumstances it can be difficult to establish the cause, which causes complication. In an attempt to convict the defendant, it must be proven that his/her conduct was a factual ‘but for’ cause and a legal cause. A factual ‘but for’ cause means that it must be established that the result would not have occurred ‘but for’ the defendant’s actions. An example would be R v. White . Similarly this is also evident in R v. Dalloway . The result would have occurred with or without the defendant’s actions.
On the other hand legal causation as described by the courts is an ‘operating and substantial cause’ and therefore results in a specifically particular outcome. Although
The area of law concerning this question is causation which simply means that the defendant’s actions must have caused the required consequence. ‘It is necessary to show not only that the defendant performed an act, but that the act caused a particular consequence.’ At first glance this seems straightforward, if ‘X’ broke ‘Y’s neck; it would be difficult for ‘X’ to deny that he/she was the cause of ‘Y’s death.
However in other circumstances it can be difficult to establish the cause, which causes complication. In an attempt to convict the defendant, it must be proven that his/her conduct was a factual ‘but for’ cause and a legal cause. A factual ‘but for’ cause means that it must be established that the result would not have occurred ‘but for’ the defendant’s actions. An example would be R v. White . Similarly this is also evident in R v. Dalloway . The result would have occurred with or without the defendant’s actions.
On the other hand legal causation as described by the courts is an ‘operating and substantial cause’ and therefore results in a specifically particular outcome. Although
Bibliography: • Jonathan Herring, Criminal Law, Oxford 2008, • Michael Allen, Textbook on Criminal Law, Oxford 9th Edition • Alan Reed & Ben Fitzpatrick, Criminal Law, London, 2006 3rd Edition • Glanville Williams, Criminal Law: The General Part, London, 2nd Edition Electronic Sources • www.lexisnexis.co.uk • www.westlaw.co.uk • www.lexisnexisconnect.co.uk • www.oup.co.uk/law/journals/ • www.thelawjournal