R v Jordan [1956]

1. Facts:

• The victim (V) was stabbed and initially treated at the hospital.

• Eight days later, when the original wound was nearly healed, V was administered antibiotics to which he was known to be allergic.

• V died as a result of this allergic reaction to the antibiotics.

2. Outcome:

• The Court of Appeal (CoA) held that the medical treatment provided to V was so “palpably wrong” that it broke the chain of causation between the stabbing and V’s death.

• The court concluded that the negligent medical treatment was an independent and significant factor that intervened between D’s actions and the resulting harm.

3. Impact and Analysis:

• Chain of Causation: The case established that if medical treatment is deemed to be palpably wrong and significantly deviates from accepted standards, it can break the causal chain between the defendant's actions and the ultimate harm.

• Legal Threshold: The ruling set a precedent for evaluating medical negligence in relation to criminal liability, emphasising that only substantial and glaring errors in treatment are likely to break the chain of causation.

• Comparison with Other Cases: Unlike R v Cheshire, where medical negligence did not sever the chain, Jordan illustrates how exceptionally poor medical treatment can intervene in the causal chain. This highlights the court's approach to balancing the defendant’s responsibility with the impact of subsequent actions, such as medical errors.

• Significance: The decision underscores the importance of assessing the quality and nature of medical treatment when determining criminal liability, particularly in cases involving complex interactions between criminal actions and medical outcomes.