Criminal Problem Question

Actus Reus is the conduct element of an offence. It is voluntary. A person who has committed an actus reus for homicide has to have conducted an act which led to the substantial and operative cause of the victim’s death. In this problem, Arnold does not commit the actus reus of a homicide offence. The blame now lies between Caroline, Evelyn and Francis. We shall firstly discuss Arnold, followed by Caroline and Evelyn and lastly Francis. The issues in this case are: whether Beryl’s knife wounds were substantial and operative enough to cause her death; whether the mistake made by medical staff (Evelyn) breaks the chain of causation; whether an act of omission by Francis who was under a contractual duty to act contributed to the death of Beryl.

We shall firstly discuss the case against Arnold. Despite being the one responsible for putting Beryl in the hospital in the first place, Arnold cannot be said to have caused Beryl’s death as she was already on the road to recovery from the poison when Caroline slashed her. In Cheshire, it is said that the alleged substantial cause must contribute to the end result to a significant extent. Thus, it can be seen that Arnold’s act of poisoning Beryl is indeed factual, substantial and blameworthy, but since the poison was not operating at the time of her death, legal cause cannot be proven and Arnold cannot be charged with committing the actus reus of homicide.

For Caroline, her free, voluntary and informed act of slashing Beryl does indeed constitute a break in the chain of causation. Novus actus interveniens has occurred as a result from a subsequent action or omission from a third party, hence rendering the original act by Arnold no longer a substantial and operative cause. On whether Beryl’s wounds from Caroline’s slashing constitutes an operative cause to her death, this will be determined on the severity of Beryl’s wound. If the wound has healed to an extent that is is considered only de minimis, Caroline could then...