Topic 20: Intervening acts of self preservation or prevention of crime.

LL.B Notes

Intervening acts of self preservation or prevention of crime.

1. Introduction

2. Objectives

3. Main content

Breaking the chin of causation

The basic rule

Judicial attitude

Issues od factual and legal causation 3.5Test in Escape cases

4. Conclusion

5. Summary

6. Tutor Marked Assignmnt

References

Introductions

When an innocent person or persons get caught in a crossfire between the Police and an armed gang, and death arises, who is has caused the death – the Police or the bandits? If the victims of the crossfire did not die but were wounded and taken to the hospital where they eventually died from wrong treatment, who is to be held liable – the Police, the initial criminal gang or the medical practitioner ?. The answer may well depend on the interpretation give to the intervening acts, and such acts in the process of self preservation, and prevention of crimes. This is the focus of this unit.

Objectives

When you have studied this unit, you should be able to:

1determine when an event can be said to break the chain of causation.

explain the concept of foreseeability nd the objective test
Illustrate these concepts through cases

Main Content

Necessity as an excuse for taking the life of another persons to preserve one’s own life is an invalid defence: R v Dudley and Stephens. It was accepted in the case of the Conjoined Twins. Sir James Stephen Broke, LJ laid down three preconditions for the application of necessity:

The act is needed to avoid inevitable and irreparable evil

No more should be done than is reasonably necessary for the purpose to be achieved

The evil inflicted must not be disproportionate to the evil voided Activity:

A member of a gang of armed robbers shoots at the police patrol van. One of the policemen in the van shoots back. He kills a girl, innocent bystander mistaken him as being used as a human shield by the robbers.

Analyse the role of (a) the criminal gang (b) the Police
Who and what, in fact, killed the deceased girl (i.e the factual causation)
Who, in law, killed the deceased girl (i.e the legal causation) to come to this conclusion, consider further the police action was:
- free, deliberate and informed or
- abnormal break in the chain of causation or
- instinctive?

(b) Very importantly, the crux of the matter before you, which you must answer is not whether or not there is any other significant contribution. Rather; the question is whether the accused person, whose conduct is in issue has contributed more than negligibly to the result, (de minim’s rule

Breaking the chain of causation

Jefferson explains that when some event breaks the chain of causation, that is novus actus intervens, the accused’s conduct becomes part of history, it is no longer the operating cause of death. It is when the intervening act is so over whelming as to make the original act of injury merely a part of history, can it be said that the killing does not flow from the original act or omission.

The basic rule

The basic rule is that the accused escapes criminal liability only if the supervening event is highly abnormal or put differently, unforeseeable, or if there has occurred what may be described as ‘free, deliberate and informed intervention’.

Much of the argument is about the concept of forseeability and in this regard, the test is an objective one.

Criminal law is a matter of hard facts and hard law. It is not a matter of sentiments. In the present context, it is not a matter of choice between which cause is dominant or which is not. The test is whether the accused’s act has contributed significantly to the killing in question.

Judicial attitude

In the instant case, the judicial attitude is that police act of intervention is not “free, deliberate and informed”. Rather, it is instinctive. Also it is foreseeable that if you fire at the police, they are likely to return fire. Their intervening act is therefore a;

A reasonable act of self-preservation and crime prevention;
An acts done in the interest of self preservation in the face of violence in the part of another, which results in death of the first person is a reasonable act performed to escape.

Read the case of R v Pagett

Let us see another category of homicide, where the act or omission of the deceased himself, or some body in locus parentis like a parent, guardian, master etc is the cause of death. The problem arises:

(a) where death is caused because:

The deceased refused medical treatment, or transfusion of blood or his parent or one who in custody of him or her refuses
the deceased jumps to his/her death in a bid to escape

(a) Death from refusal of medical treatment

Often, the reasons for refusing medical treatment is either

Religious belief, or
Spite

(a) R V Holland (1841) is an example of Victims rejection of medical treatment

The deceased in this case requires medical treatment for a wound to his finger and dies of tetanus.

Held: the ultimate cause of death is the wound.

In matters little that the victim declines treatment of blood transfusion for religious or psychological reasons. It will be otherwise, where medical treatment or blood transfusion is refused out of spite provided that such refusal is “free, deliberate and informed”.

Self Assessment Exercise

Adeola threatens violence against his neighbour’s child. The child, in fright, scales over the stair case and is badly injured. The medical doctor prescribes blood transfusion. The child’s parents are member of the Jehovah witness and they do not, only withhold their consent but expressly refuse blood transfusion. The child

Discuss the criminal liability of Adeola and the child’s parents?

It is a principle of law that an accused person shall take his/her their victim as they find him/her. Discuss this principles of law as it applies to novus actus interveniens

Death resulting from deceased’s own act or omission

The last group of intervening act you need to know about is the conduct of the victim. That is to consider, in the light of the facts before us, whether or not -the deceased committed suicide

Was the fatal injury was self inflicted or inflicted by another ?
Who killed the deceased in fact and in ?

Activity:

Consider these cases: Duru has sexually abused Martha, a young child. Martha’s father goes to Duru’s house and slashes him twice with a knife. Duru bleeds profusely. The doctor stops the bleeding and treats the wound. Duru re-opens the wounds; he bleeds again and dies two days later.

To resolve the matter consider the following:

the intervening acts
re-opening the wound
omission to stop bleeding
both conditions
point to the direction of suicide
the significance of each of the parties contribution
probability that Duru was a “daft” for re-opening his
if the assumption in is right, then the rule: “The accused must take his victim as he finds him” (including his mental state).

Self Assessment Exercise

Discuss the concepts of Novus actus interveniens and foreseeability as they apply in criminal law.

Let us look at more to the cases on the subject matter.

In R v Dalby (1982) the accused supplied a dangerous drug with which he and the deceased injected themselves.

The question for determination by the court was whether or not there was an intervening act. Held, there was, the deceased self injection is unlawful and it broke the chain of causation; and the deceased was responsible for his own death.

R v Kenedy

Accused supplied a heroin based drug mixed in a syringe and gave to the deceased. The deceased knew of the content, injected herself and died. The court was asked to decide.

Whether the accused caused the death
Whether the conduct of the accused merely set the stage

Held: The mixing of the drug for “immediate use” was an act of encouragement and operative cause of death.

Following this case, if Agartha drops some chips on the floor, Bosso steps on it, slips on them and falls to the ground, banging his head against on an object and dies. Agartha may have caused the killing of Bosso.

Let us subsume by considering two controversial cases.

Case 1 :

Damola makes sexual advances to Amina, and interferes with her. Amina complains to her father, Alh. Mustapha. In fury, Mustapha goes to Damola, slashes him with a knife. Damola is rushed to the hospital and treated. At home, Damola reopens his wound. He begins to bleed, and does nothing to stop it, and dies, as a result Alh. Mustapha is arrested and charged.

Case II

Haruna and Shakoor drive out one evening in Haruna’s car. They stopped and pick Sophia some distance away, Haruna begins to drive slowly, Shakoor takes on Sophia, begins to remove her coat and shirt forcefully. Sophia is frightened, jumps out of the moving car , hits her head on the gutter and dies. Shakoor is arrested and charged..

Issues of Factual and Legal Causation

Attempt to determine the following issues in each case:

the factual causation
The legal causation

The following considerations may guide you in the right path.

who and what killed Damola (case 1) or Sophia (case II)?
Is there a free, deliberate and informed novus actus interveniens
Can you say Damola (case 1) and Sophia (case II) committed sucide?.

Related to these issues are further questions namely:

whether the conduct of Damola in reopening his wound and failing to stop the bleeding is “draft” abnormal or extra-ordinary and potent.
Whether the conduct of Sophia in jumping out of a vehicle that was moving at a slow speed was “draft” abnormal, extra-ordinary and potent.

If your answer is yes, the inference may be that each of them has caused his or her own death.

Lets move a little further.

Is the conduct of Damola (case I) and Sophia (case II) reasonable?

If your answer is yes, then the inference may be that Alh. Mustapha (case I) and Shakoor (case II) may be criminally responsible for the killing.

The test in escape cases

The test in escape cases is one of reasonable forceseability

Let us look at the case of R V Royall (1991).

T was found dead in a pool of blood on the ground below her bathroom. There were evidence of struggle, around. R and T have lived there for four months as husband and wife. R said he was present when T voluntarily jumped down to her death, and that he had no intention to kill or harm her. In finding R criminally responsible for killing T, his wife, the court expressed the opinion that in escape cases, an act done by a person in the interest of self preservation, in the face of violence or threats of violence on the part of another, which results in the death of the first person, does not negative the causal connection between the violence or threats of violence and the death.

In essence, any reasonable intervening act performed for the purpose of escape does not break the causal chain.

Remember that legal issues find answers in law. In the search for such answer, you are not to jump to conclusions. Move logically from one level of reasoning to another level and ultimately to a logical conclusion.

It is important that in your analysis, you should bear the following principles of law in mind.

If an escape is a natural result of what the assailant says or does in the sense that it is something that can reasonably be foreseen as the consequences of what he/she is doing or saying, the assailant is liable
Escape must be in the range of foreseeable action or omission. That is to say that the escape must be a natural consequence of the Assailant’s behaviour
An escape will breaks the chain only when it is free, deliberate and informed on draft
The law is not concerned whether the victim (the deceased) is deaf, drunk, careless, or whether he/she has a strong or egg-shell head. You take him/her as you
It is irrelevant that the deceased’s act or omission has contributed to his/her death.
Once a person embarks on a dangerous cause of conduct, which may foreseeably injure another or others, that person must take responsibilities for theConsequence that ensues

Where another conduct induces in the victim, a well founded apprehension of physical harm such as to make it a natural consequence (or reasonable) that the victim would seek to escape and the victim is injured in the cause of escaping, that other is damnified.

Activity

A number of phrases have arisen from judicial interpretation which nowhere defined or used in the statute Examples are:

Well founded apprehension of the victim-nature and
Reasonableness or proportionate act of self preservation
Foresight as to consequence of the fatal act by the victim or third party

Meditate on each of the above expression and ensure you know what each of them means.

Conclusion

The mens rea and actus reus for murder must be contemporaneous. The cases of intervening injuries inflicted by the victim or third parties arise in (a) medical treatment or refusal of medical,(b) police actions of self preservation and prevention of crime and (c ) escape arising from a well founded apprehension of harm by the victim .

By and large, the rationality (or irrationality) or the reasonableness (or unreasonableness) of the victims responses are variable practices and the courts will weigh then according to all the circumstances of each particular case. You must also bear in mind that in an agony of the moment, one may act without thought and deliberation. Hence, a person, who is fearful for their own safety, may be forced to react on the spur of the moment, and may not always make a sound or sensible judgment and may even act irrationally.

Summary

The criminal law distinguishes between legal causation and factual causation and may in appropriate, cases legally ascribe killing of some one to an assailant other than the very person, who in fact killed.

You have learned also a number of legal principles and rules. Examples are

De minimis non curat lex;
Natural consequences test
Reasonable foresight test
Novus actus intervenies

You should be able to explain and contribute meaningfully to any discussion on the above concepts and justify your stand by reference to decided cases or statues.

Tutor-marked Assignment

The criminal law has been criticised for its unfairness in that an accused can be held to be the cause of consequences even though the victim himself is a third party is the immediate cause. Discuss this critically with reference to decided cases.

References

Jefferson , M G (2003), Criminal law 6^th Ed. Longman, London

Butler T. and Garsia M: (1969), Archbold, Pleading, Evidence and Practice, Sweet and Maxwell, London.

Madarikan C and Agada T, (1974) Brett and Mclean’s: The Criminal Law and Procedure of the Six Southern States of Nigeria, Sweet and Maxwell.

Ormord D (2005), Smith and Hogan Criminal Law. 11^th Ed . oxford University , Press ,London

Molan M (2003) Criminal law 4^th Ed . Old Bailey Press, London