R v Cheshire
Negligent medical treatment breaks the chain of causation only if it is so independent of the defendant's acts, and so potent, that the defendant's contribution is insignificant.
Facts
Mr Cheshire shot a man in the leg and stomach during an argument in a fish and chip shop. The victim was taken to hospital and needed a tracheotomy to help him breathe. About two months later, he died, because a rare complication of the tracheotomy had narrowed his windpipe, which the doctors negligently failed to recognise and treat. At the time of death, the gunshot wounds were no longer life threatening. Mr Cheshire was convicted of murder.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction. Beldam LJ said that even though negligence in the treatment of the victim was the immediate cause of his death, the jury should not regard it as excluding the responsibility of the accused unless the negligent treatment was so independent of his acts, and in itself so potent in causing death, that they regard the contribution made by his acts as insignificant. The defendant's acts need not be the sole or even the main cause of death, provided they contributed significantly to it.
Related cases on causation
- Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467
- Barker v Corus UK Ltd [2006] UKHL 20, [2006] 2 AC 572
- Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 428
- Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613
- Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41, [2005] 1 AC 134
- Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22, [2003] 1 AC 32
- Gregg v Scott [2005] UKHL 2, [2005] 2 AC 176
- Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987] AC 750
Studying criminal law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
