1. Paul was taking a walk by a lake. He noticed a young boy in the lake who was having
di culty swimming and calling for help. Paul, although a pro cient swimmer, decided to keep
on walking. A few minutes later Sarah walked by and saw the boy who was still struggling.
She swam out to him and dragged him to the edge of the lake. The boy was not breathing.
Sarah decided not to resuscitate the boy, despite being trained to do so, because she
recognised him as someone who has caused a lot of anti-social behaviour in the local
neighbourhood. She instead called for an ambulance on her mobile. The boy was later
pronounced dead in the local hospital. Discuss the potential criminal liability, if any, of Paul
and Sarah.
A defendant is only guilty of a crime when failing to act, where he or she is under a duty to act,
but it is arguable whether Paul and Sarah had any legal obligation to act. ‘But for’ or factual
causation is the defendant’s act is a ‘but for’ cause of a result, but for the defendant’s act, the
result would not have occurred. Due to Pauls actions of walking past the boy drowning he could
be held to have been a factor in the victim’s death, under the draft criminal code Claus 17
providing that “he omits to do an act.” But for Pauls actions the victim would not have died at the
time and place that he did. Similarly, Sarahs choosing not to resuscitate the boy could have
caused the boy’s death. She was trained in resusucitation so did have duty of care and qiyks be
liable 1. Paul was taking a walk by a lake. He noticed a young boy in the lake who was having
di culty swimming and calling for help. Paul, although a pro cient swimmer, decided to keep on
walking. A few minutes later Sarah walked by and saw the boy who was still struggling. She swam
out to him and dragged him to the edge of the lake. The boy was not breathing. Sarah decided
not to resuscitate the boy, despite being trained to do so, because she recognised him as
someone who has caused a lot of anti-social behaviour in the local neighbourhood. She instead
called for an ambulance on her mobile. The boy was later pronounced dead in the local hospital.
Using the IRAC method analyze the judgment of the Court of Appeal in R v Wallace [2018] EWCA
Crim 690. Ignore the discussions of the evidential rulings paragraphs 29 -40. Make sure to read
the rest of the judgment in full. It is available at: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/
2018/690.html
1. Was the defendant’s conduct a legally su cient cause of the victim’s death?
As the court observed, that can be more than one legally suf cient cause. The Court of Appeal
con rmed in the cases of Smith, Blaue and Malcherek that the key question is whether the injuries
in icted by the defendant were a substantial and operative cause of death. It is immaterial whether
some other cause was operating. As the Court of Appeal emphasised in Dear [1996] Crim LR 595
the correct approach in the criminal law is determined “not by philosophical analysis, but by
common sense according to all the circumstances of the particular case”. On the facts of the instant
case, the argument that the horri c injuries in icted by the defendant were not a substantial and
operative cause of the victim’s death lacks reality. Deliberate and unlawful act. The defendant did
deliberately throw acid over mr van dongen. Intention at the time of the attack, I don’t believe that
the defendant intended to kill mr van dongen but did intend to cause him serious bodily harm.
causation. The defendant was charged with applying a corrosive uid with intent contrary to section
29 of the 1861 Act and post Mr van Dongen’s death, she was also charged with his murder. The
defendant’s conduct was a legally suf cient cause of the victim’s death. As Sharp LJ argued, given
the physical and psychological suffering endured by the victim, it could not be said that his decision
to seek euthanasia was truly voluntary, in the sense that it was the product of free and unfettered
volition presupposed by the novus acts rule. His decision was a direct response to the in icted
injuries and to the circumstances created by them for which the defendant was responsible.
2. Whether the victim’s act in seeking euthanasia and the acts of the doctors in giving e ect to his
wishes constituted a break in the chain of causation.
Lord Bingham held that the free, informed and voluntary decision of the victim broke the chain of
causation, emphasising that the criminal law generally respects the principle of individual
autonomy.
ffi
fl fi
fi fi ffi fl fi fi fl flff
di culty swimming and calling for help. Paul, although a pro cient swimmer, decided to keep
on walking. A few minutes later Sarah walked by and saw the boy who was still struggling.
She swam out to him and dragged him to the edge of the lake. The boy was not breathing.
Sarah decided not to resuscitate the boy, despite being trained to do so, because she
recognised him as someone who has caused a lot of anti-social behaviour in the local
neighbourhood. She instead called for an ambulance on her mobile. The boy was later
pronounced dead in the local hospital. Discuss the potential criminal liability, if any, of Paul
and Sarah.
A defendant is only guilty of a crime when failing to act, where he or she is under a duty to act,
but it is arguable whether Paul and Sarah had any legal obligation to act. ‘But for’ or factual
causation is the defendant’s act is a ‘but for’ cause of a result, but for the defendant’s act, the
result would not have occurred. Due to Pauls actions of walking past the boy drowning he could
be held to have been a factor in the victim’s death, under the draft criminal code Claus 17
providing that “he omits to do an act.” But for Pauls actions the victim would not have died at the
time and place that he did. Similarly, Sarahs choosing not to resuscitate the boy could have
caused the boy’s death. She was trained in resusucitation so did have duty of care and qiyks be
liable 1. Paul was taking a walk by a lake. He noticed a young boy in the lake who was having
di culty swimming and calling for help. Paul, although a pro cient swimmer, decided to keep on
walking. A few minutes later Sarah walked by and saw the boy who was still struggling. She swam
out to him and dragged him to the edge of the lake. The boy was not breathing. Sarah decided
not to resuscitate the boy, despite being trained to do so, because she recognised him as
someone who has caused a lot of anti-social behaviour in the local neighbourhood. She instead
called for an ambulance on her mobile. The boy was later pronounced dead in the local hospital.
Using the IRAC method analyze the judgment of the Court of Appeal in R v Wallace [2018] EWCA
Crim 690. Ignore the discussions of the evidential rulings paragraphs 29 -40. Make sure to read
the rest of the judgment in full. It is available at: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/
2018/690.html
1. Was the defendant’s conduct a legally su cient cause of the victim’s death?
As the court observed, that can be more than one legally suf cient cause. The Court of Appeal
con rmed in the cases of Smith, Blaue and Malcherek that the key question is whether the injuries
in icted by the defendant were a substantial and operative cause of death. It is immaterial whether
some other cause was operating. As the Court of Appeal emphasised in Dear [1996] Crim LR 595
the correct approach in the criminal law is determined “not by philosophical analysis, but by
common sense according to all the circumstances of the particular case”. On the facts of the instant
case, the argument that the horri c injuries in icted by the defendant were not a substantial and
operative cause of the victim’s death lacks reality. Deliberate and unlawful act. The defendant did
deliberately throw acid over mr van dongen. Intention at the time of the attack, I don’t believe that
the defendant intended to kill mr van dongen but did intend to cause him serious bodily harm.
causation. The defendant was charged with applying a corrosive uid with intent contrary to section
29 of the 1861 Act and post Mr van Dongen’s death, she was also charged with his murder. The
defendant’s conduct was a legally suf cient cause of the victim’s death. As Sharp LJ argued, given
the physical and psychological suffering endured by the victim, it could not be said that his decision
to seek euthanasia was truly voluntary, in the sense that it was the product of free and unfettered
volition presupposed by the novus acts rule. His decision was a direct response to the in icted
injuries and to the circumstances created by them for which the defendant was responsible.
2. Whether the victim’s act in seeking euthanasia and the acts of the doctors in giving e ect to his
wishes constituted a break in the chain of causation.
Lord Bingham held that the free, informed and voluntary decision of the victim broke the chain of
causation, emphasising that the criminal law generally respects the principle of individual
autonomy.
ffi
fl fi
fi fi ffi fl fi fi fl flff
