R v Cheshire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Criminal law in English law
Part of the common law series
Classes of crimes
Summary  · Indictable
Hybrid offence  · Regulatory offences
Lesser included offence
Elements of crimes
Actus reus  · Causation
Mens rea  · Intention (general)
Intention in English law  · Recklessness
Criminal negligence  · Corporate liability
Vicarious liability  · Strict liability
Omission  · Concurrence
Ignorantia juris non excusat
Inchoate offences
Incitement  · Conspiracy
Accessory  · Attempt
Common purpose
Defences
Consent
Duress  · Necessity  · Self-defence
Provocation  · Diminished responsibility
Insanity
Crimes against the person
Common assault  · Battery
Actual bodily harm  · Grievous bodily harm
Offences Against The Person Act 1861
Murder  · Manslaughter
Corporate manslaughter  · Harassment
Public order and crimes against property
Criminal Damage Act 1971
Malicious Damage Act 1861
Public Order Act 1986
Public nuisance
Crimes of dishonesty
Theft Act 1968  · Theft  · Dishonesty
Robbery  · Burglary  · TWOC
Deception  · Deception offences
Blackmail  · Handling
Theft Act 1978  · Forgery
Fraud Act 2006  · Computer crime
Sexual crimes
Rape  · Kidnapping
Crimes against justice
Bribery  · Perjury
Obstruction of justice
See also Criminal Procedure
Criminal Defences
Other areas of the common law
Contract law  · Tort law  · Property law
Wills and trusts  · Evidence
Portals: Law  · Criminal justice

R v Cheshire (1991) 93 Cr. App. Rep. 251 is an English criminal law case, dealing with causation and homicide. The court ruled that even if a medic's negligence is the immediate cause of the victim's death, it must be completely independent from the actions of the defendant for the chain of causation to be broken.

The victim had been shot, and was suffering from respiratory problems when he entered hospital. He was given a tracheotomy, but after two months this caused complications to his breathing, and he died.

The court decided that despite the medical negligence, the defendants responsibility should not be absolved, since the victim would not have been in medical care, were it not for his actions (the but for test).

[edit] See also

R v Smith (Thomas Joseph) [1959]