Legal Case Summary
R v Cheshire (David William) [1991] 1 WLR 844; [1991] 3 All ER 670; (1991) 93 Cr App R 251
Chain of causation – Death in hospital following shooting
Facts
Cheshire shot a man during the course of an argument. The victim was taken to hospital to have surgery and shortly after developed respiratory issues. The doctors inserted a tracheotomy tube, which remained in place for four weeks. The victim’s condition initially failed to improve. After later improvement, he again complained of breathing difficulties, which were initially attributed to anxiety. His condition worsened and he died. The post-mortem found that the victim’s windpipe had narrowed near the location where the tracheotomy pipe had been inserted. Cheshire was subsequently charged with murder and convicted. The decision was appealed.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
Issue
A key issue in this case was whether the accused’s acts of shooting the victim had caused the death or whether the chain of causation was broken by the negligent medical treatment that the victim had received following being injured by the shooting. At trial, the judge directed the jury that medical negligence would break the chain of causation only if it amounted to recklessness.
Decision/Outcome
Appeal dismissed. The jury was not required to evaluate the competing causes of death. The Court of Appeal held that the accused’s acts need not be the sole or even the main cause of death, provided they contributed significantly. The trial judge had erred by focusing on the degree of fault in the medical treatment rather than its consequences, but no miscarriage of justice had occurred. Even if negligent medical treatment was the immediate cause of the victim’s death, it would not absolve the accused unless the treatment was so independent of the accused’s acts, and in itself so potent in causing death, that the contribution of those acts was insignificant. The respiratory complication was a direct consequence of the shooting, which remained a significant cause of death.
