Criminal Law Novus Actus Interveniens
Novus Actus Interveniens forms an aspect of legal causation in criminal law and refers
to the inquiry as to whether the defendant's conduct or omission caused the harm or damage
or whether an intervening act breaks the chain of causation. If something happens after the defendant's act or omission, the later act may break the
chain of causation. This is known as a Novus Actus Interveniens. That is a new intervening act which breaks the chain of causation
Different tasks apply to decide if the chain has been broken depending on the intervening party
The act of a third party will generally break the chain of causation unless the action was foreseeable
In our view hazard, the defendant fired shots at the police and then used his pregnant girlfriend
as a shield when they returned fire. The defendant was liable for her death as the actions of the police were foreseeable
Per the actions of the victim, the chain of causation will not be broken unless the victim's
actions are disproportionate or unreasonable in the circumstances. In our view Robert, there is no break in the chain of causation where the woman jumped
out of a moving car to escape the sexual advances of the defendant
Compare with the case of R.V. Williams and Davis where a male hitchhiker jumped out of
a car driven at speed as he feared the defendant was going to steal his wallet
These actions were deemed unreasonable and disproportionate, breaking the chain of causation
Where the victim is an adult of sound mind and makes a decision which causes death, this
will break the chain of causation where the decision was free, deliberate and informed
In R.V. Ponedis 2007, the victim's decision to self-inject the heroin prepared and supplied
by the defendant broke the chain of causation. In R.V. Wallace, the defendant threw a glass of sulphuric acid over her ex-boyfriend
His cause were a thick injury. He was left disfigured, partially paralyzed and in unbearable pain
He returned to his home country of Belgium where euthanasia is legal and made the decision
to end his life. The trial judge ruled that this decision had broken the chain of causation so the defendant
could not be charged for murder. The prosecution appealed. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and stated he should be charged for murder
The jury should consider if his decision to end his life was within the range of responses
which might have been expected from a victim in his position. Where medical intervention contributes to death, the courts have been inconsistent in
their approach. In R.V. Jordan, the court looked at whether the wound was the operating cause of death
The defendant was not liable as the scab wound was healing when he died from an allergic
reaction to an antibiotic. The same approach, but different outcomes, applied in R.V. Smith where the soldier was
blocked twice and doctors failed to diagnose his punctured lung. The defendant remained liable as the scab wound was the operating cause of death
However, in R.V. Kresser the defendant was liable just because the part of the wound
was healing. The defendant put the victim in the leg and stomach
The hospital gave him a tracheotomy as he had difficulty breathing. He died from complications arising from the tracheotomy
The court departed from Smith and Jordan and considered whether the defendant's actions
were significant in causing death. His action in shooting him could not be said to be insignificant in causing his death
Therefore, he remained liable. In summary, Inova's active intervenions of the victim will break the chain of causation
where their actions were unreasonable and disproportionate. While the intervening act is of a third party, this will break the chain of causation unless
it was foreseeable. If the new act was medical intervention, the question is whether the act of the defendant
was significant and the injury inflicted was the operating cause. This video is part of a series of videos on law from www.elawresources.co.uk
Please subscribe to our YouTube channel www.youtube.com slash elawresources. It's free to do so and will help us to keep providing these videos
Check out our website which provides lecture outlines and case summaries. See also www.elawrevision.org.uk for revision domes and quizzes
Thanks for watching