R v Cheshire [1991]
Share
R v Cheshire [1991] 1 WLR 844 is a significant English criminal law case that clarified the role of the jury in determining liability for death when subsequent medical negligence occurs following the original injury. The Court of Appeal established that the jury does not need to weigh different causes of death; rather, it is sufficient for them to be satisfied that the defendant's actions made a significant contribution to the victim's death.
On December 9, 1987, the appellant attacked and shot a man in a fish and chip shop. The victim underwent surgery and developed respiratory problems, ultimately dying in February 1988. Medical evidence suggested that the victim's death resulted from the doctor's failure to diagnose the cause of his respiratory issues. The trial judge instructed the jury that they could only find the defendant's chain of causation broken if they were satisfied that the medical staff had been reckless in their treatment.
The Court of Appeal, referencing the earlier judgment in R v Jordan [1956], rejected the appellant's argument that the trial judge had misdirected the jury regarding the medical staff's acts. Beldam LJ emphasised that it was only necessary for the Crown to prove that the defendant's actions caused the victim's death, not that they needed to be the only or main cause of death.
The court established a general principle: even if negligence in the victim's treatment was the immediate cause of death, the jury should not exclude the defendant's responsibility unless the negligent treatment was so independent and potent in causing death that it rendered the defendant's contribution insignificant. The court clarified that the jury's ordinary consideration should be whether the negligent treatment of the victim is so independent of the defendant's acts that it makes the defendant's contribution to the eventual death insignificant.
This judgment clarified the approach for the jury in cases where subsequent medical negligence is a factor in the victim's death, making it clear that the defendant can still be held liable if their actions made a significant contribution to the overall outcome, even if other factors were also at play.
On December 9, 1987, the appellant attacked and shot a man in a fish and chip shop. The victim underwent surgery and developed respiratory problems, ultimately dying in February 1988. Medical evidence suggested that the victim's death resulted from the doctor's failure to diagnose the cause of his respiratory issues. The trial judge instructed the jury that they could only find the defendant's chain of causation broken if they were satisfied that the medical staff had been reckless in their treatment.
The Court of Appeal, referencing the earlier judgment in R v Jordan [1956], rejected the appellant's argument that the trial judge had misdirected the jury regarding the medical staff's acts. Beldam LJ emphasised that it was only necessary for the Crown to prove that the defendant's actions caused the victim's death, not that they needed to be the only or main cause of death.
The court established a general principle: even if negligence in the victim's treatment was the immediate cause of death, the jury should not exclude the defendant's responsibility unless the negligent treatment was so independent and potent in causing death that it rendered the defendant's contribution insignificant. The court clarified that the jury's ordinary consideration should be whether the negligent treatment of the victim is so independent of the defendant's acts that it makes the defendant's contribution to the eventual death insignificant.
This judgment clarified the approach for the jury in cases where subsequent medical negligence is a factor in the victim's death, making it clear that the defendant can still be held liable if their actions made a significant contribution to the overall outcome, even if other factors were also at play.
