Task Details

Appellant: Thomas Joseph Smith

Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen

Year: 1959

Court: Court Martial Appeals Court

Judges: Chief Justice Lord Parker, Streatfield & Hinchcliffe Judges

Country: UK

Area of law: Causation and Murder

Issue: What establishes a satisfactory cause to make criminal liability? Was the action of Smith a sufficient cause to establish criminal liability?

It is an English criminal law case that dealt with the causation and homicide. In this case, the defendant named Smith, who was a soldier stabbed the victim, who was also a soldier with a bayonet on his back during a fight between the two in the army barracks at a military base. The friend of the victim took him for the first aid and additional medical treatment but on his way to the medics, victim fallen down twice. Above it, the medical officer at the first aid post was also busy and took some extra time in attending the victim meanwhile he died due to the severe injury caused to him. It was found in medical evidence that the treatment provided to him was late as well as tangibly wrong. It was found that he died about two hours after getting stabbed by the defendant because of the failure of the doctors to diagnose that that lungs of victim had been punctured. It was revealed that the doctors failed to provide saline solution to the victim and could not considered blood transfusion and to provide him artificial respiration at the collapse of his lung and the victim died resultantly. It was also found that if he would have been provided with the effective treatment on time, the situation would have been different and the victim might have recovered from the injury.  

The defendant appealed to the court and the defence claimed that in order to criminalize him for charge of murder, it was essential to prove that actions of Smith were the cause of the death of victim. The defence claimed that the victim would have survived but the reason of his death became the negligence of medical staff, for which, defendant should not be charged. The defence claimed that it was obvious that there was no probability of the victim to be in hospital but for his stabbing, however, it was contended by the defence that it was completely prejudiced to criminalize the defendant as the court must have been established that the death was the natural and only result of the stabbing by the defendant.

The decision of the court was that the treatment provided to him was exhaustively worst and if it would have been effective, the probabilities of the recovery of victim have been more. However, the procedure of medical treatment does not interrupt the chain of causation.   In case if the death would have been caused the actual would that would have been the operating cause and considerable cause, then the death can be the consequence of the wound even if the former cause have also been effective. As the secondary cause of death was as irresistible as it had made the actual wound only a less significant part that it can be considered that death was not a result of the wound caused to the victim. However, it was kept by the court that the stabbing was still the effective cause of death that is why, the defendant was considered to be as guilty by the court. The wound was found to be the effective cause of death by the court which is why, the conviction of defendant was upheld for murder at a court martial. The court held that if, the original wound was still a considerable cause of death, and then the original wound could have been considered to be as the cause of death albeit additional cause was also effective. It would not be correct on the part of the court to dismiss initial cause if the second cause was “overwhelming” and on that basis only, the original cause could not be the cause of death of the victim.

Module Learning Outcomes Assessed

This case deals with causation, which refers to the enquiry regarding if the conduct or omission of the defendant causes the harm or damage and in all crimes, the causation needs to be established. In criminal liability, causation is categorized on two basis i.e. factual causation as well as legal causation. The factual causation needs application of ‘but for’ test, however, it is sufficient enough to establish the causation with factual causation in cases where, there is no existence of complicating factors. The legal causation is caused due to culpable act and there is no requirement in such circumstances to prove that the act done by the defendant was the sole cause. It requires that there need to be no novus actus interveniens and the defendant need to take his victim as he discovers him, which refers to the thin skull rule.

This case is more relevant to the legal causation as it establishes that the harm must have been the result of any culpable act. A novus actus interveniens is considered as an intervening act which is responsible for breaking the chain of causation. In order to achieve the purpose, various tests are taken into consideration that decide if the chain of causation has been interrupted on the basis of the intervening party.  It depends on three basis i.e. action of third party, action of victim, and medical intervention.

R v Smith applies under the category of medical intervention as it contributed to the death of the victim and where the court have always been inconsistent in their approach towards such cases.      

It is an English law case that dealt with the causation and homicide. It was ruled by the court that negligence of medical staff could not interrupt the causation in court cases related to murder. The victim was stabbed but the doctor attending the case failed to realize the full extent of his injuries which caused to death of the victim.  

Similar was the decision of the court in R v Cheshire (1991) WLR 844. It was also based on finding the liability for death following the medical negligence that occurred after the actual injury. It was found by the Court of Appeal that it was not essential for the bench to weigh up varying reasons of death because to determine it is enough that the act of the defendant contributed to the death of the victim. This case was almost similar as the victim was admitted to the hospital after being attacked by the appellant, where he underwent surgery. Instead of it, he developed respiratory obstruction and even after insertion of tracheostomy tube in the windpipe twice, he continued complaining and died shortly after. It was evident in the medical reports that the death of the victim was the consequence of failure of doctor to detect the cause behind his suffering from panting and respiratory obstruction. Still, the defendant was sentenced by the court as it was instructed by the trial judge to the jury that they successfully found chain of causation of the defendant to be interrupted only when they would have been satisfied that the medical staff was negligent in providing effective treatment to the victim and he died due to this reason. 

Similarly, the verdict of the court given in R v Jordan (1956) 40 Cr App R 152 was also consigned in the judgment, which referred to such exceptional cases where, the operational cause of death was not the consequence of the acts of the defendant. Thus, the usual concern for panel must be if the negligent medical treatment of victim was completely different aspect from the acts done by the defendant that it reduced them unimportant to the ultimate death of the victim. It was revealed by the team of doctors that the victim would have had a 75% probability of survival if right treatment had been provided to the victim.  The act of defendant was not the sole cause of death of the victim but it was the initial cause of the death and thus, considered to be as equally contributing to the death of the victim.      

Therefore, it has been realized that if the initial cause of the outcome remains to be a significant cause at the occurrence of the proscribed consequence, it is considered to be as the cause of the consequence even if there are additional causes that contribute towards such a consequence until the succeeding causes are sufficient enough to establish liability.  

References

Case Brief Wiki, ‘R V Smith’ (Case Brief Wiki, 2018) <https://casebrief.wikia.com/wiki/R_v_Smith> accessed 6 December 2018

Evans G, ‘Causation Cases’ (Digestible Notes, 2018) <https://digestiblenotes.com/law/criminal_cases/causation.php> accessed 6 December 2018

E-law Resources, ‘R V Smith [1959]’ (E-law Resources, 2018) <https://e-lawresources.co.uk/R-v-Smith-%5B1959%5D.php> accessed 6 December 2018

E-law Resources, ‘Causation in Criminal Liability’ (E-law Resources, 2018) <https://e-lawresources.co.uk/Causation-in-criminal-liability.php> accessed 6 December 2018

Law Teacher, ‘R V Smith – 1959’ (Law Teacher, 2018) <https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/r-v-smith.php> accessed 6 December 2018

Revolvy, ‘”R V Cheshire” On Revolvy.Com’ (Revolvy, 2018) <https://www.revolvy.com/page/R-v-Cheshire> accessed 6 December 2018

Revolvy, ‘”R V Smith (Thomas Joseph)” On Revolvy.Com’ (Revolvy, 2018) <https://www.revolvy.com/page/R-v-Smith-(Thomas-Joseph)> accessed 6 December 2018

Student Vip, ‘Sample contents page’ (Student Vip, 2018) <https://s3.studentvip.com.au/notes/11786-sample.pdf> accessed 6 December 2018

Swarb, ‘Regina V Smith: 1959’ (Swarb, 2018) <https://swarb.co.uk/regina-v-smith-1959/> accessed 6 December 2018

Web Stroke, ‘R V Smith [1959] | Case Summary’ (Webstroke, 2018) <https://webstroke.co.uk/law/cases/r-v-smith-1959> accessed 6 December 2018