R v Smith (Thomas Joseph)

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. Smith (Thomas Joseph) [1959] 2 QB 35, [1959] A.C. is an English criminal law case, dealing with causation and homicide. The court ruled that negligence of medical staff does not break the chain of causation in murder cases

The victim was stabbed, but the attending doctor did not realise the full extent of his injuries, causing death.

The court said that the stabbing was still the 'operating' cause of death, and therefore the defendant is guilty.

[edit] Case Brief

Facts: Smith stabbed the victim who died 2 hours later; Smith had dropped the stab victim on the way to the hospital to get treatment. Once in emergency care, there was no blood transfusion. The victim was given saline solution (which, medically, is a gross error), and used artificial respiration - not knowing that the victim was suffering from a pierced lung). It was stated that with proper treatment, chances of the victim's survival was about 75%.

Issue: Did Smith cause the death of the stab victim?

Defence: argued that death was not the sole and natural consequence of wound, and hence, did not flow directly from it.

Court: Essence of causation test – is that if at the time of death, the wound is still an operating and substantial cause, then death is caused by the wound, even though another operating cause may be present. This is often referred to as the chain of causation. If the original wound is merely a setting in which another cause operates, then it cannot be said that death resulted from the stab wound. Is the second cause so overwhelming so as to make the first wound merely part of the history?

One question to ask is: Can you show a new cause which disturbs the sequence of events?

Held: The Court looked to particular facts of the case, and Smith was convicted, as he satisfied the Essence of causation test. If the stabbed soldier had received proper treatment while in emergency care, he would have had a good chance of a complete recovery. Smith was consequently convicted of manslaughter because the wound was in fact the “operating and substantial cause of death”. Third party's inadvertent contribution was a major factor of this decision.

[edit] See also

R v Cheshire (1991)