R v Hughes [2013]
Share
R v Hughes [2013] UKSC 56, [2014] Crim LR 234 underscores the distinction between legal causation and factual, i.e. but-for causation. The facts of the case involve the defendant, a driver with a provisional licence and no insurance, being in a collision with the victim , who later died. Despite the defendant's faultless driving and the victim being entirely responsible for the accident, the defendant was charged with causing death by driving while unlicensed and uninsured under S3ZB of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
The Supreme Court held that the defendant should be acquitted of the charge since he had not legally caused the victim's death. Lords Hughes and Toulson emphasised the distinction between the cause as a sine qua non (but for) and the cause as a legally effective cause. The statutory wording, "causing...death...by driving", imported the concept of causation. The Court recognised that, for the severe penalty of homicide, establishing guilt under S3ZB required more than mere but-for causation.
The judgment clarified that the mere presence of the defendant's vehicle on the road was not sufficient to establish guilt; there must be some act or omission in the control of the car, involving an element of fault, contributing in more than a minimal way to the death. The defendant's faultless driving, in law, was not a cause of the victim's death, as his manner of driving could not be faulted. This decision emphasises the importance of fault and legal effectiveness in determining causation under the relevant statute.
The Supreme Court held that the defendant should be acquitted of the charge since he had not legally caused the victim's death. Lords Hughes and Toulson emphasised the distinction between the cause as a sine qua non (but for) and the cause as a legally effective cause. The statutory wording, "causing...death...by driving", imported the concept of causation. The Court recognised that, for the severe penalty of homicide, establishing guilt under S3ZB required more than mere but-for causation.
The judgment clarified that the mere presence of the defendant's vehicle on the road was not sufficient to establish guilt; there must be some act or omission in the control of the car, involving an element of fault, contributing in more than a minimal way to the death. The defendant's faultless driving, in law, was not a cause of the victim's death, as his manner of driving could not be faulted. This decision emphasises the importance of fault and legal effectiveness in determining causation under the relevant statute.
