R v Jordan [1956]
Share
R v Jordan [1956] 40 Cr App R 152 is a notable English criminal law case that established the principle that in certain situations of medical negligence following a wounding, the chain of causation can be broken, relieving the person who inflicted bodily harm of guilt for a more severe offence such as homicide. This concept is often referred to as a novus actus interveniens.
The appellant and three others, all serving members of the United States Airforce, were involved in a disturbance at a café in Hull. The appellant stabbed a man named Beaumont, who was then admitted to the hospital. The defence conceded that the appellant had stabbed Beaumont, but they later uncovered medical evidence not available at trial. The appeal was based on the argument that the medical treatment received by the victim was so negligent that it broke the appellant's liability.
In the judgment of Hallett J, acting as a judge of the Court of Appeal, it was acknowledged that the victim's death was not consequent upon the wound inflicted. The fresh medical evidence revealed that the stab wound had mostly healed, and the administration of an antibiotic, terramycin, resulted in complications due to the patient's intolerance to the drug.
The court held that ordinarily, circumstances and medical treatment following serious bodily harm are not relevant in establishing a defendant's liability. However, if the original wound or injury caused by the defendant is still an operating cause of death, negligent medical treatment will not constitute a novus actus interveniens.
In this case, the court found that the defendant's liability was broken because the original wound had mostly healed, and further medical treatment was deemed palpably wrong. The court concluded that a reasonable jury would not be satisfied that the defendant's acts were the material cause of the victim's death. As a result, the conviction was quashed, and the defendant was not held liable for the more severe charge of homicide.
This case illustrates the importance of considering the specific facts and medical circumstances in determining causation and criminal liability in cases involving injuries followed by medical treatment.
The appellant and three others, all serving members of the United States Airforce, were involved in a disturbance at a café in Hull. The appellant stabbed a man named Beaumont, who was then admitted to the hospital. The defence conceded that the appellant had stabbed Beaumont, but they later uncovered medical evidence not available at trial. The appeal was based on the argument that the medical treatment received by the victim was so negligent that it broke the appellant's liability.
In the judgment of Hallett J, acting as a judge of the Court of Appeal, it was acknowledged that the victim's death was not consequent upon the wound inflicted. The fresh medical evidence revealed that the stab wound had mostly healed, and the administration of an antibiotic, terramycin, resulted in complications due to the patient's intolerance to the drug.
The court held that ordinarily, circumstances and medical treatment following serious bodily harm are not relevant in establishing a defendant's liability. However, if the original wound or injury caused by the defendant is still an operating cause of death, negligent medical treatment will not constitute a novus actus interveniens.
In this case, the court found that the defendant's liability was broken because the original wound had mostly healed, and further medical treatment was deemed palpably wrong. The court concluded that a reasonable jury would not be satisfied that the defendant's acts were the material cause of the victim's death. As a result, the conviction was quashed, and the defendant was not held liable for the more severe charge of homicide.
This case illustrates the importance of considering the specific facts and medical circumstances in determining causation and criminal liability in cases involving injuries followed by medical treatment.
