Essay Plan: ‘The Meaning of Causation is Heavily Context Specific and...Parliament (or in Some Cases the Courts) May Apply Different Rules of Causation in Different Situations.’ R v Hughes [2013]. Does This Mean that the Law of Causation is Unprincipled?

Introduction

• Focus: Evaluates whether the law of causation is unprincipled given its context-specific application and the varying rules applied in different situations, as demonstrated in cases such as R v Hughes.

• Thesis: The law of causation, while demonstrating flexibility to adapt to different contexts, can appear unprincipled due to its reliance on varying principles and context-specific rules, leading to inconsistent applications and judicial discretion.

Paragraph 1: Third Party Interventions

• Argument: The law’s application to third party interventions reveals its context-specific nature and potential for being unprincipled.

• Key Cases:

◦ Empress Car Company v National Rivers Authority (1998): Held that a defendant’s liability for causing pollution could be excluded if the intervening event was ‘extraordinary’ and ‘abnormal.’ Lord Hoffmann's use of ‘common sense’ to determine causation highlights a reliance on context-specific judgments.

◦ R v Kennedy (No. 2) (2007): Overruled the principle established in Empress, holding that an act of self-injection by the victim, even if prompted by the defendant, breaks the chain of causation due to the victim's autonomy. This case rejected the earlier principle of ‘extraordinary/abnormal’ actions and highlighted the law’s dependence on the context of the victim’s actions.

◦ R v Field (2021): Showed a different approach, where the defendant’s encouragement to drink and pretended affection did not break the chain of causation. This conflicted with the reasoning in Kennedy, demonstrating inconsistent applications based on the context-specific nature of the case.

• Analysis: The shift from the principle in Empress to Kennedy and the contradictions highlighted in Field illustrate how the law of causation can seem unprincipled due to its context-specific nature. The reliance on subjective interpretations and varying principles across cases leads to a lack of consistency.

Paragraph 2: Reasonable Foreseeability

• Argument: Reasonable foreseeability introduces an additional factor that complicates the principle of causation, adding to its apparent lack of principle.

• Key Cases:

◦ R v Roberts (1971): Established that a defendant is liable if the victim’s response to a threat was foreseeable. This case demonstrated how foreseeability can influence causation judgments.

◦ R v Williams (1992): Discussed how reasonable foreseeability impacts the assessment of causation, particularly when evaluating whether the defendant’s actions were a significant contributing cause.

• Analysis: The incorporation of reasonable foreseeability as an extra factor in assessing causation complicates the principle and can lead to inconsistent outcomes. The principle's dependence on the foreseeability of outcomes adds to the context-specific and seemingly unprincipled nature of causation law.

Paragraph 3: Intervening Voluntary Euthanasia

• Argument: The treatment of voluntary euthanasia in causation cases reveals further complexity and potential for unprincipled application.

• Key Cases:

◦ R v Wallace (2018): Addressed the issue of voluntary euthanasia, where the defendant’s actions led to the victim’s decision to end their life. The case highlighted the complexities of determining causation when the victim's actions are voluntary and deliberate.

◦ R v Jordan (1956): Although not directly related to euthanasia, this case’s discussion on medical interventions provides context for understanding how voluntary actions can impact causation.

• Analysis: The legal treatment of voluntary euthanasia introduces significant context-specific factors that influence the application of causation principles. The complexities in Wallace demonstrate how the principle of causation can appear unprincipled when applied to cases involving voluntary and deliberate actions by victims.

Conclusion

• Summary: The law of causation, through its application to third party interventions, reasonable foreseeability, and voluntary euthanasia, shows significant context-specific variation that can make it appear unprincipled.

• Recommendation: To address the perceived lack of principle, there should be clearer guidelines and a more consistent framework for applying causation principles across different contexts. This could enhance the predictability and fairness of legal outcomes in causation cases.

Sample Paragraphs

The law of causation may be viewed as unprincipled through its application in regards to third party interventions. The case of Empress Car Company 1998 involved the defendant who trespassed onto property turning on an oil tap which leaked into the nearby river. Lord Hoffmann held that to break the chain of causation the defendants act had to be ‘extraordinary’ and ‘abnormal’ and this particular context did fulfil this criteria. Therefore, the chain of causation was not broken. The court also stated that to distinguish between ordinary and extraordinary factors will be judged based off ‘common sense’. This is a common theme in criminal law for the court to give such words their ordinary meaning. Although this upholds the principle of legality in that it is easily accessible and understandable to laymen, for a principle to rely on its ordinary meaning can be unprincipled which can be demonstrated in light of Kennedy No.2 2007. This case involved the defendant who prepared a syringe of heroin for the victim. The victim injected himself and died. The question was whether the act of self-injecting would break the chain of causation. The Court of Appeal held that it broke the chain because adults are treated as autonomous beings capable of making their own decisions. Departing from the ‘extraordinary/abnormal’ principle in Empress, the judgement in Kennedy implicitly rejected and overruled that principle. The highly context-specific nature of the law of causation highlights how it can be unprincipled. Lord Bingham in Kennedy cites Glanvillle Williams to support his decision where he argues that someone may urge and tell one to do something, but they do not cause one to do it. They held that a free, voluntary and informed action by the victim will break the chain of causation. However, not only does this conflict with Empress which they rejected, but also with R v Field 2021. This case involved the defendant who encouraged the victim to drink and pretended to be in a caring and loving relationship with him. The victim ended up dying of alcohol toxicity and the defendant was convicted of murder. This contradicts Glanville Williams and Kennedy’s statements. The court in Field tried to use the Kennedy defence but failed because they said the victim was not free, voluntary or informed. The context-specific nature of the law of causation highlights how it can lead to different application of principles and the appearance of it operating in an unprincipled nature.