In this case, Chris may not satisfy the legal causation of murder due to “Novus Actus Interveniens” or a new cause
intervening. This theory states that if a new act intervenes, the chain of causation will be broken and the defendant
will not be guilty. However, this does not work if the defendant is the operative cause of death or, in other words,
was the actual cause of death. In this case, the first cause would be Candy giving the child ketamine and the second
cause would be Chris kidnapping the child. Whilst Chris kidnapping the child may be a new act intervening, it does
not break the chain of causation as Candy giving the child ketamine was the operative cause of death not Chris’
actions. This is similar to “R v Smith” where, despite a new act intervening when the medical officer refused to treat
the victim, Smith was still the operative cause of death as he was the one who shot the victim. In both R v Smith and
Chris’ case, the new act did not break the chain so therefore Chris is not guilty of murder.
If Candy were charged with manslaughter, she would likely be sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. There are two
key aggravating factors that would increase her sentence. First of all, as the victim was a child, there is a vulnerable
victim, especially considering that the child is a baby. Moreover, as Candy is the child’ mother, there is an abuse of
power and trust because the child would trust Candy to look after them yet Candy abused this trust. However, a big
mitigating factor is that Candy is only 18 so is an adolescent. Therefore, her sentence would drop a significant
amount but the aggravating factors would still keep the sentence fairly high.
intervening. This theory states that if a new act intervenes, the chain of causation will be broken and the defendant
will not be guilty. However, this does not work if the defendant is the operative cause of death or, in other words,
was the actual cause of death. In this case, the first cause would be Candy giving the child ketamine and the second
cause would be Chris kidnapping the child. Whilst Chris kidnapping the child may be a new act intervening, it does
not break the chain of causation as Candy giving the child ketamine was the operative cause of death not Chris’
actions. This is similar to “R v Smith” where, despite a new act intervening when the medical officer refused to treat
the victim, Smith was still the operative cause of death as he was the one who shot the victim. In both R v Smith and
Chris’ case, the new act did not break the chain so therefore Chris is not guilty of murder.
If Candy were charged with manslaughter, she would likely be sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. There are two
key aggravating factors that would increase her sentence. First of all, as the victim was a child, there is a vulnerable
victim, especially considering that the child is a baby. Moreover, as Candy is the child’ mother, there is an abuse of
power and trust because the child would trust Candy to look after them yet Candy abused this trust. However, a big
mitigating factor is that Candy is only 18 so is an adolescent. Therefore, her sentence would drop a significant
amount but the aggravating factors would still keep the sentence fairly high.
