Culpable Homicide (General & Murder)

Emotional stress from burglary caused heart attack. Cannot be held resp for causing someones death by action on their mind alone, s 163 CA. (If fright and physical injury occur together s 163 wont operate).

S 164: Causation not excluded merely because V would have died from some other disorder enayway. (V's condition isnt a novus actus). However a doctor may withdraw treatment if the patient consents or (Lord Kinkel) 'where a large body of informed and responsible medical opinion is to the effect that no benefit at all would be conferred by continuance'

Defines homicide as the killing of a human being by another, either directly or indirectly, by any means whatsoever.

In homicide cases it was rarely necessary to give the jury any direction on causation as such; even where it was necessary, it was usually enough to direct them that the accused's act need not be the sole cause or even the main cause of the victim's death, it being enough that the act contributed significantly to the result

Preserves ancient CL rule that there will be no criminal resp for causing death unless death occurs within a year and a day after the cause.

Removing life support=novus actus? Said no, constructed so didnt break the chain: removal was prevention of prolongation of life by artificial means. Challenged as was an action that accelerated death.Should have said was a cause but justifiable and didnt remove other causes. Casuation tied up with motives and value judgments.

V refused blood transfusion. Court refused to make judgment as to reasonableness- take the V as you find them, their failure to act is not a NA.. s11 BORA: right to refuse treatment. s 165 still cause death even if might have been prevented

Subsequent treatment admin in good faith will not break the chain of causation, even if the treatment is the immediate cause of death.

Treatment was held to be so grossly negligent as to break the chain of causation.

Tracheotomy goes wrong. Medical treatment will only break the chain if is so independent and so potent as to make the original wound part of the history.

If the V does something as a result of D's actions and dies, their action wont be a NA. Appears to be limited to threats of fear, violence or deception. Suicide as a result? Depends if threat is still operative.

What the V does in a flight respinse must be reasonably foreseeable.

167(a) Intentional killing requires direct intention to kil,l must be their purpose.

Threw baby at wall and cracked skull. Allowed jury to infer intention inthat he must have foresaw death as a VC.

S 167(b) Reckless killing D must have actually appreciated or had conscious appreciation of the likelihood of that conduct causing death, cannot be just a general notion