Problem Question: Criminal Law, No.13
Problem Question
Charles, a fierce opponent of Brexit, throws paint at the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister pushes her bodyguard, Evander, in the way. Evander is covered in paint and, as a result, suffers a nasty rash. Evander, interested in alternative medicine, takes a herb recommended by Hu, a local herbalist. Evander suffers an allergic reaction to the herb and dies. Research just published indicates that one in two million people are known to be allergic to this herb. What offences, if any, have been committed? Consider the potential criminal liability of Charles, the Prime Minister, and Hu.
Analysis
Charles’s Criminal Liability
1. Battery
• Actus Reus and Mens Rea:
◦ Actus Reus: Charles threw paint at the Prime Minister, which constitutes the actus reus of battery.
◦ Mens Rea: Charles intended to cause a battery to the Prime Minister by throwing the paint.
• Transferred Malice:
◦ Under the principle of transferred malice, the intent to harm the Prime Minister transfers to Evander, who was harmed by the paint.
◦ R v Latimer [1886] establishes that if a defendant intends to harm one person but inadvertently harms another, the intent transfers to the actual victim.
• Chain of Causation:
◦ The causal link between Charles’s act and Evander's death needs to be examined.
◦ Break in Chain of Causation: In R v Kennedy [2007], it was established that if a victim voluntarily takes an intervening act (such as self-administering drugs), this can break the chain of causation if the intervention is free, voluntary, and informed.
◦ In this case, Evander’s decision to seek alternative medicine is a free and voluntary act. Therefore, the chain of causation is broken by this act.
Conclusion: Charles is liable for battery against the Prime Minister. The chain of causation is broken due to Evander’s voluntary and informed decision to take the herb, so Charles is not liable for Evander’s death.
Prime Minister’s Criminal Liability
1. Battery
• Actus Reus and Mens Rea:
◦ The Prime Minister’s act of pushing Evander, which resulted in the paint causing a rash, constitutes battery.
◦ The intention behind the push is relevant, and it must be determined if the act was intended to cause harm.
• Chain of Causation:
◦ Break in Chain of Causation: As with Charles’s liability, the intervening act of Evander seeking alternative medicine breaks the chain of causation.
◦ Reasonable Foreseeability: While it was reasonably foreseeable that Evander would seek treatment, the specific choice of alternative medicine and the resulting death were not foreseeable to the Prime Minister.
Conclusion: The Prime Minister is liable for battery but not for Evander’s subsequent death due to the break in the chain of causation caused by Evander’s independent and informed decision to take the herb.
Hu’s Criminal Liability
1. Gross Negligence Manslaughter
• Actus Reus and Mens Rea:
◦ Actus Reus: Hu recommended a herb that caused an allergic reaction in Evander.
◦ Mens Rea: The test for gross negligence involves considering whether Hu’s conduct fell so far below the standard of care that it amounted to criminal negligence.
• Reasonable Foreseeability:
◦ Foreseeability of Harm: The likelihood of an allergic reaction to the herb is extremely rare (one in two million).
◦ R v Roberts [1971]: The test for foreseeability in criminal negligence is whether a reasonable person would have foreseen the risk of harm.
◦ R v Blaue [1975]: The thin skull rule requires that a defendant takes their victim as they find them, but this applies primarily to pre-existing conditions rather than rare reactions.
Conclusion: Given the extreme rarity of the allergic reaction, Hu’s actions are unlikely to meet the threshold for gross negligence manslaughter. The harm was not reasonably foreseeable to a standard practitioner, making criminal liability unlikely.
Summary
• Charles: Liable for battery against the Prime Minister. Not liable for Evander’s death due to the break in the chain of causation caused by Evander’s voluntary act of seeking alternative medicine.
• Prime Minister: Liable for battery of Evander but not for Evander’s death, as the chain of causation was broken by Evander’s subsequent actions.
• Hu: Unlikely to be criminally liable for gross negligence manslaughter, as the risk of harm from the herb was extremely rare and not reasonably foreseeable.