Intervening Acts and Chain of Causation

This page discusses intervening acts and their potential to break the chain of causation in criminal law.

Intervening acts, also known as novus actus interveniens, can potentially break the chain of causation between a defendant's actions and the resulting consequence. For a defendant to be found guilty, there must be an unbroken link between their act and the outcome.

Intervening acts that may break the chain of causation include:

1. Acts by a third party
2. The victim's own actions
3. Natural but unpredictable events
4. Medical intervention

Example: In R v Jordan (1956), a stabbing victim died due to an allergic reaction to antibiotics administered by a doctor. The court held that the doctor's actions were an intervening act that broke the chain of causation, and the defendant was not guilty of murder.

However, not all subsequent events will break the chain of causation. In R v Smith (1959), poor medical treatment that likely affected the victim's chances of survival by 75% did not absolve the original attacker of guilt for murder.

Highlight: The thin skull rule legal liability principle can extend to pre-existing medical conditions, as seen in R v Cheshire (1991), where the defendant was held liable for the victim's death from complications arising from treatment of the original injury.

When considering a victim's own acts, if the defendant causes the victim to react in a foreseeable way, any resulting injury will still be attributed to the defendant.

Example: In R v Roberts (1972), a girl jumped from a moving car to escape sexual advances. The defendant was held liable for her injuries as her reaction was considered foreseeable.