R v Malcherek and Steel [1981]
Share
R v Malcherek and Steel [1981] 2 All ER 422 is a legal case that dealt with the issue of causation in the context of criminal law. The central question was whether the medical treatment provided to the victims broke the chain of causation between the defendants' actions and the victims' deaths.
Malcherek stabbed his wife, leading to medical treatment. Subsequently, the victim suffered irretrievable brain damage during surgery, and life support was disconnected after her condition did not improve. Steel caused serious head injuries to a girl. Despite immediate medical intervention, her brain stopped functioning, and life support was disconnected. The key issue in both cases was whether the medical treatment given to the victims broke the chain of causation, relieving the defendants of murder charges.
The appeals were dismissed. The court held that the fact that the medical treatment was in line with approved medical practice did not absolve the defendants of guilt. The crucial factor was whether the original injuries inflicted by the defendants remained the operative cause of death.
The court found that there was no evidence to suggest that the defendants' actions ceased to be the primary cause of death. As a result, the trial judges were justified in withdrawing the issue of causation from the jury, as it was clear that the initial injuries were the cause of death.
This case reinforces the principle that if the defendant's actions are a substantial and operating cause of death, subsequent medical treatment does not break the chain of causation. The defendants were held responsible for the deaths because their initial actions were deemed to be the continuing and effective cause of the fatal outcomes.
Malcherek stabbed his wife, leading to medical treatment. Subsequently, the victim suffered irretrievable brain damage during surgery, and life support was disconnected after her condition did not improve. Steel caused serious head injuries to a girl. Despite immediate medical intervention, her brain stopped functioning, and life support was disconnected. The key issue in both cases was whether the medical treatment given to the victims broke the chain of causation, relieving the defendants of murder charges.
The appeals were dismissed. The court held that the fact that the medical treatment was in line with approved medical practice did not absolve the defendants of guilt. The crucial factor was whether the original injuries inflicted by the defendants remained the operative cause of death.
The court found that there was no evidence to suggest that the defendants' actions ceased to be the primary cause of death. As a result, the trial judges were justified in withdrawing the issue of causation from the jury, as it was clear that the initial injuries were the cause of death.
This case reinforces the principle that if the defendant's actions are a substantial and operating cause of death, subsequent medical treatment does not break the chain of causation. The defendants were held responsible for the deaths because their initial actions were deemed to be the continuing and effective cause of the fatal outcomes.
