INTERVENING ACTS OF SELF PRESERVATION OR PREVENTION OF CRIME

TOPIC OF THE DAY

- BREAKING THE CHAIN OF CAUSATION

- THE BASIC RULE

- JUDICIAL ATTITUDE

- ISSUES OF FACTUAL AND LEGAL CAUSATION

- TEST IN ESCAPE CASES

Breaking the Chain of Causation

In criminal law, the concept of breaking the chain of causation refers to intervening acts that sever the causal connection between the defendant's actions and the resulting harm. Essentially, if a new, intervening act occurs after the defendant's actions, which is not reasonably foreseeable, it may absolve the defendant of liability for the harm caused.

The Basic Rule

The basic rule regarding breaking the chain of causation is that if an intervening act is deemed to be independent of the defendant's actions and breaks the chain of causation, the defendant may not be held criminally liable for the resulting harm.

Judicial Attitude

Nigerian courts generally adopt a cautious approach when assessing whether an intervening act breaks the chain of causation. They carefully examine the facts and circumstances of each case to determine the extent to which the defendant's actions contributed to the harm and whether any intervening acts were foreseeable.

Issues of Factual and Legal Causation

Factual causation involves establishing whether the defendant's actions were a factual cause of the harm suffered by the victim. Legal causation, on the other hand, concerns whether the defendant's actions were a legally significant cause of the harm, taking into account any intervening acts. See the case of R v. Blaue (1975) 1 WLR 1411 where the court held that the defendant was criminally liable for the victim's death, even though the victim refused a blood transfusion due to her religious beliefs. This decision emphasized the principle that defendants take their victims as they find them, including any pre-existing conditions or beliefs.

Test in Escape Cases

In escape cases, where a defendant's actions are considered a response to an immediate threat to life or safety, the test often applied is whether the defendant's actions were a reasonable response to the threat posed. If the defendant's actions are deemed reasonable in the circumstances, they may not be held criminally liable, even if their actions result in harm to another. See section 315 of the Criminal Code which addresses the concept of causation in Nigerian criminal law and the case of R v. Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279 where the principle was established that if a person uses another as a shield against the police, and that person is then shot and killed by the police, the defendant can be guilty of manslaughter.