R v Smith [1959] 2 QB 35 - Case Brief on Causation and Murder

R v Smith [1959] 2 QB 35 is an English criminal law case that dealt with the causation and homicide. The case established that the harm must have been the result of any culpable act and that medical negligence could not interrupt the causation in court cases related to murder. The article discusses the legal causation and the chain of causation in criminal liability. It also compares the verdict of the court in R v Smith with other similar cases.

Criminal Law

R V SMITH [1959] 2 QB 35
Appellant: Thomas Joseph Smith
Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen
Year: 1959
Court: Court Martial Appeals Court
Judges: Chief Justice Lord Parker, Streatfield & Hinchcliffe Judges
Country: UK
Area of law: Causation and Murder
Issue: What establishes a satisfactory cause to make criminal liability? Was the action of Smith a
sufficient cause to establish criminal liability?
Facts of Case
It is an English criminal law case that dealt with the causation and homicide. In this case, the
defendant named Smith, who was a soldier stabbed the victim, who was also a soldier with a
bayonet on his back during a fight between the two in the army barracks at a military base. The
friend of the victim took him for the first aid and additional medical treatment but on his way to
the medics, victim fallen down twice.1 Above it, the medical officer at the first aid post was also
busy and took some extra time in attending the victim meanwhile he died due to the severe injury
caused to him. It was found in medical evidence that the treatment provided to him was late as
well as tangibly wrong.2 It was found that he died about two hours after getting stabbed by the
defendant because of the failure of the doctors to diagnose that that lungs of victim had been
1 Case Brief Wiki, 'R V Smith' (Case Brief Wiki, 2018) <http://casebrief.wikia.com/wiki/R_v_Smith> accessed 6
December 2018.
2 Gareth Evans, 'Causation Cases' (Digestible Notes, 2018)
<https://digestiblenotes.com/law/criminal_cases/causation.php> accessed 6 December 2018.

punctured. It was revealed that the doctors failed to provide saline solution to the victim and
could not considered blood transfusion and to provide him artificial respiration at the collapse of
his lung and the victim died resultantly. It was also found that if he would have been provided
with the effective treatment on time, the situation would have been different and the victim might
have recovered from the injury.
The defendant appealed to the court and the defence claimed that in order to criminalize him for
charge of murder, it was essential to prove that actions of Smith were the cause of the death of
victim. The defence claimed that the victim would have survived but the reason of his death
became the negligence of medical staff, for which, defendant should not be charged. The defence
claimed that it was obvious that there was no probability of the victim to be in hospital but for
his stabbing, however, it was contended by the defence that it was completely prejudiced to
criminalize the defendant as the court must have been established that the death was the natural
and only result of the stabbing by the defendant.
Decision of Court
The decision of the court was that the treatment provided to him was exhaustively worst and if it
would have been effective, the probabilities of the recovery of victim have been more. However,
the procedure of medical treatment does not interrupt the chain of causation. 3 In case if the
death would have been caused the actual would that would have been the operating cause and
considerable cause, then the death can be the consequence of the wound even if the former cause
have also been effective. As the secondary cause of death was as irresistible as it had made the
actual wound only a less significant part that it can be considered that death was not a result of
3 E-law Resources, 'Causation in criminal liability' (E-law Resources, 2018) <http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Causation-
in-criminal-liability.php> accessed 6 December 2018.

the wound caused to the victim. However, it was kept by the court that the stabbing was still the
effective cause of death that is why, the defendant was considered to be as guilty by the court.
The wound was found to be the effective cause of death by the court which is why, the
conviction of defendant was upheld for murder at a court martial. The court held that if, the
original wound was still a considerable cause of death, and then the original wound could have
been considered to be as the cause of death albeit additional cause was also effective. It would
not be correct on the part of the court to dismiss initial cause if the second cause was
"overwhelming" and on that basis only, the original cause could not be the cause of death of the
victim.4
Analysis
This case deals with causation, which refers to the enquiry regarding if the conduct or omission
of the defendant causes the harm or damage and in all crimes, the causation needs to be
established. In criminal liability, causation is categorized on two basis i.e. factual causation as
well as legal causation. The factual causation needs application of ‘but for’ test, however, it is
sufficient enough to establish the causation with factual causation in cases where, there is no
existence of complicating factors. The legal causation is caused due to culpable act and there is
no requirement in such circumstances to prove that the act done by the defendant was the sole
cause.5 It requires that there need to be no novus actus interveniens and the defendant need to
take his victim as he discovers him, which refers to the thin skull rule.6
4 E-law Resources, 'R V Smith [1959]' (E-lawresources.co.uk, 2018) <http://e-lawresources.co.uk/R-v-Smith-
%5B1959%5D.php> accessed 6 December 2018.
5 Law Teacher, 'R V Smith - 1959' (Law Teacher, 2018) <https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/r-v-smith.php> accessed
6 December 2018.
6 Revolvy, 'R V Smith (Thomas Joseph)' (Revolvy, 2018) <https://www.revolvy.com/page/R-v-Smith-(Thomas-
Joseph)> accessed 6 December 2018.

This case is more relevant to the legal causation as it establishes that the harm must have been
the result of any culpable act. A novus actus interveniens is considered as an intervening act
which is responsible for breaking the chain of causation. In order to achieve the purpose, various
tests are taken into consideration that decide if the chain of causation has been interrupted on the
basis of the intervening party. It depends on three basis i.e. action of third party, action of
victim, and medical intervention.
R v Smith applies under the category of medical intervention as it contributed to the death of the
victim and where the court have always been inconsistent in their approach towards such cases.
It is an English law case that dealt with the causation and homicide. It was ruled by the court that
negligence of medical staff could not interrupt the causation in court cases related to murder. The
victim was stabbed but the doctor attending the case failed to realize the full extent of his injuries
which caused to death of the victim.
Similar was the decision of the court in R v Cheshire (1991) WLR 844. It was also based on
finding the liability for death following the medical negligence that occurred after the actual
injury. It was found by the Court of Appeal that it was not essential for the bench to weigh up
varying reasons of death because to determine it is enough that the act of the defendant
contributed to the death of the victim. This case was almost similar as the victim was admitted to
the hospital after being attacked by the appellant, where he underwent surgery. Instead of it, he
developed respiratory obstruction and even after insertion of tracheostomy tube in the windpipe
twice, he continued complaining and died shortly after. It was evident in the medical reports that
the death of the victim was the consequence of failure of doctor to detect the cause behind his
suffering from panting and respiratory obstruction.7 Still, the defendant was sentenced by the
7 Web Stroke, 'R V Smith [1959] | Case Summary' (Web Stroke, 2018) <https://webstroke.co.uk/law/cases/r-v-smith-
1959> accessed 6 December 2018.

court as it was instructed by the trial judge to the jury that they successfully found chain of
causation of the defendant to be interrupted only when they would have been satisfied that the
medical staff was negligent in providing effective treatment to the victim and he died due to this
reason.8
Similarly, the verdict of the court given in R v Jordan (1956) 40 Cr App R 152 was also
consigned in the judgment, which referred to such exceptional cases where, the operational cause
of death was not the consequence of the acts of the defendant. Thus, the usual concern for panel
must be if the negligent medical treatment of victim was completely different aspect from the
acts done by the defendant that it reduced them unimportant to the ultimate death of the victim.9
It was revealed by the team of doctors that the victim would have had a 75% probability of
survival if right treatment had been provided to the victim. The act of defendant was not the sole
cause of death of the victim but it was the initial cause of the death and thus, considered to be as
equally contributing to the death of the victim.10
Therefore, it has been realized that if the initial cause of the outcome remains to be a significant
cause at the occurrence of the proscribed consequence, it is considered to be as the cause of the
consequence even if there are additional causes that contribute towards such a consequence until
the succeeding causes are sufficient enough to establish liability.
8 Revolvy, 'R V Cheshire' (Revolvy.com, 2018) <https://www.revolvy.com/page/R-v-Cheshire> accessed 6
December 2018.
9 Student Vip, 'Sample contents page' (Student Vip, 2018) <https://s3.studentvip.com.au/notes/11786-sample.pdf>
accessed 6 December 2018.
10 Swarb, 'Regina V Smith: 1959 - Swarb.Co.Uk' (Swarb, 2018) <https://swarb.co.uk/regina-v-smith-1959/>
accessed 6 December 2018.

References
Case Brief Wiki, 'R V Smith' (Case Brief Wiki, 2018)
<http://casebrief.wikia.com/wiki/R_v_Smith> accessed 6 December 2018
Evans G, 'Causation Cases' (Digestible Notes, 2018)
<https://digestiblenotes.com/law/criminal_cases/causation.php> accessed 6 December 2018
E-law Resources, 'R V Smith [1959]' (E-law Resources, 2018) <http://e-lawresources.co.uk/R-v-
Smith-%5B1959%5D.php> accessed 6 December 2018
E-law Resources, 'Causation in Criminal Liability' (E-law Resources, 2018) <http://e-
lawresources.co.uk/Causation-in-criminal-liability.php> accessed 6 December 2018
Law Teacher, 'R V Smith - 1959' (Law Teacher, 2018) <https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/r-v-
smith.php> accessed 6 December 2018
Revolvy, '"R V Cheshire" On Revolvy.Com' (Revolvy, 2018) <https://www.revolvy.com/page/R-
v-Cheshire> accessed 6 December 2018
Revolvy, '"R V Smith (Thomas Joseph)" On Revolvy.Com' (Revolvy, 2018)
<https://www.revolvy.com/page/R-v-Smith-(Thomas-Joseph)> accessed 6 December 2018
Student Vip, 'Sample contents page' (Student Vip, 2018)
<https://s3.studentvip.com.au/notes/11786-sample.pdf> accessed 6 December 2018
Swarb, 'Regina V Smith: 1959' (Swarb, 2018) <https://swarb.co.uk/regina-v-smith-1959/>
accessed 6 December 2018
Web Stroke, 'R V Smith [1959] | Case Summary' (Webstroke, 2018)
<https://webstroke.co.uk/law/cases/r-v-smith-1959> accessed 6 December 2018