Red Herrings
Where history gets messy and the law gets loud.
Brittany and Joccoaa take turns serving up shocking crimes and unforgettable legal battles. One brings the past, the other brings the courtroom — and together, they bring the chaos.
It’s smart, a little unhinged, and full of twists you won’t see coming.
Red Herrings
A Break in Causation
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
Welcome to Red Herrings!
This week, Joccoaa gives us a lesson in the law...
We go through, the Definition of Murder, Unlawful and Lawful Killing, Criminal Liability, Actus Reus, Mens Rea, A Break in Causation followed by discussion of examples and 3 specific cases; R v Jordan [1956], R v Blaue [1975 and R v Pagett [1973]
Hosted by Brittany Warren & Joccoaa Gray
Sound Engineer & Co-host Christopher Brown
Edited by Joccoaa Gray
Sources:
Old Bailey Online
Welcome to Red Herrings. I'm Jakwa, Master's student in Law and Human Rights, host of True Crime Club Newcastle, and creator of True Crime Forum Newcastle.
SPEAKER_03Hi, I'm Brittany. I have two degrees in history and 15 years experience in genealogy. We're the red herrings.
SPEAKER_00Well, well, well. What do we have here? Two red herrings and the catch of the day. Don't forget about me.
SPEAKER_01Hi Chris! We're the red herrings.
SPEAKER_00And Chris. We are recording.
SPEAKER_03Okay. Christopher is back. Yay.
SPEAKER_00Yay! Did you miss me?
SPEAKER_04I missed you very much. I'm sure the viewers did. I'm sh the viewers. The viewers, the listeners. Can either of you tell me what is the definition of murder?
SPEAKER_03One person taking another person's life.
SPEAKER_00Intentionally.
SPEAKER_03Ooh. Yes. Yes. Yes. Because then it's manslaughter.
SPEAKER_04Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Yes.
SPEAKER_00And premeditated?
SPEAKER_04I don't think we know. Or not in those words.
SPEAKER_00Okay. I'm excited.
SPEAKER_04So I've got written here, yes, all brilliant definitions.
SPEAKER_03Yes.
SPEAKER_04Interestingly, though, there isn't an official definition of murder. It is technically not a statutory offence.
SPEAKER_00That's interesting. So it's just common law. Yeah. That's pretty cool.
SPEAKER_04So there's nothing specifically written for murder in the UK. No official murder act like we have for theft or offences against the person, for example. That sets out clear definitions of the offence in the act, but nothing for murder.
unknownMurder.
SPEAKER_04Does anyone know what you get for murder in the UK?
SPEAKER_03I don't know if there's a set. You know, because you're grinning over there, like you know. I don't know. Would it not just depend on the circumstances of the case?
SPEAKER_00It's always life, right?
SPEAKER_03Is it life?
SPEAKER_04So you would get a mandatory life sentence if you are convicted for murder. Does anyone know how many years that's can start with? How so you get your mandatory life sentence, you will serve at least 30.
SPEAKER_00I think it's pretty low, right? There's no minimum?
SPEAKER_04There is a minimum.
SPEAKER_00There is a minimum, I didn't know that.
SPEAKER_0415. Yes. Is it? Really?
SPEAKER_00That's interesting.
SPEAKER_04So for murder in the UK, you would get a mandatory life sentence that starts at 15 years. Once you've served that sentence, you get out on license and you can be recalled at any time.
SPEAKER_03Can you explain that?
SPEAKER_04If you are recalled, your previous conviction would be taken into account. So let's say you murder somebody, you get convicted of murder, you get 15 years, you get let out after 15 years, and then you get done for theft. That whatever you that would be then taken into account. Your murder conviction previously would be taken into account. So I think the the maximum sentence you can get for theft in the UK is seven years. But if you had a previous conviction of murder, you could get like 25.
SPEAKER_03Right. Oh my goodness.
SPEAKER_04But also the recalled bit is like if you say if you've got a curfew and you miss it, you go straight back to prison. So it's almost like being out on bail.
SPEAKER_02Okay.
SPEAKER_04If that makes sense. So you can be recalled any time for your entire life.
SPEAKER_02Wow.
SPEAKER_04That is like till you die.
SPEAKER_02Crazy.
SPEAKER_04Make sense?
SPEAKER_02Yes, thank you.
SPEAKER_04Any questions?
SPEAKER_02No.
SPEAKER_04Okay, so Lord Coke was a big shot in the 1600s, and he wrote that was very Jaudy. You wrote. He wrote the Institutes of the Laws of England, and in it he did write his own definition of murder. So he said when a person unlawfully kills any reasonable creature in being and under the king's peace, with malice aforethought, either express or implied by the law. This has now been amended, so it it did say a bit about the year and the day rule. So I think it basically said, unless after a year and a day. But we know from our beginning episodes that the year and a day rule was abolished in 1998.
SPEAKER_03Close. 1999. Six.
SPEAKER_00I knew it was one year either side of 97, but I couldn't work out which one.
SPEAKER_03We should do a quiz on our one-year anniversary, quiz each other on all the cases. Such a good idea.
SPEAKER_04I think I would have an unfair advantage because I've heard them all like again. So does anyone know what he means when he says reasonable creature?
SPEAKER_00Well, cats are out.
SPEAKER_04Cats are out. Humans. That is, yeah. That is supposed to be the defining language between humans and animals. So it might have been in the 1600s, but it isn't anymore.
SPEAKER_00See, I've met a lot of animals that are more reasonable than some humans.
SPEAKER_04100%. Couldn't agree more. And I mean, are we including men in that? Don't think so. And what about under the king's peace? Is it just within war, right?
SPEAKER_01Yeah.
SPEAKER_04Oh, okay. Yeah. So it has to not be in wartime. So, like we said, reasonable means human. So that language is supposed to separate humans from animals, and creature means born and alive. So a fetus would not be considered a reasonable creature, and therefore you cannot murder something that hasn't been born. This is still current law in the UK. What do you think might constitute a lawful killing?
SPEAKER_03Is it if like someone's hanged?
SPEAKER_04Oh, okay. Yes, I suppose back then.
SPEAKER_03Back then, not now. Sorry, but you meant back then. Yeah, today. Lawful killing, I don't know.
SPEAKER_00I'm guessing it's something like self-defense, or if the police kill someone and it's like um justified.
SPEAKER_04Or there's one more.
SPEAKER_00Um go on.
SPEAKER_04Mercy killings.
SPEAKER_00Oh, okay.
SPEAKER_04So Really? Although technically not, you will find that assisted suicide or mercy killings are you don't usually even reach court. Now, in order for a person to be criminally liable for something, it must have two contributions. They must be responsible for certain conduct that is against the law. So this is formally referred to as the actus reus, and secondly, they must have the appropriate state of mind laid down by the criminal law, and this is called the men's rear. So I was just gonna say I've heard of that. Yeah. Oh god.
SPEAKER_03That's all I know. I I've heard of it. That's good. From a TV show. Oh, which one? Um How to Get Away with Murder.
SPEAKER_04Oh, yeah.
SPEAKER_03Have you seen it?
SPEAKER_04Yeah. When we're talking about murder specifically, to bring forward a charge of murder, both the actus reus and the men's rhea must both exist in the case. So the actus reason as mentioned is the action taken to kill that victim, and the men's rhea is the mind behind the act, the intent, as Chris so rightly identified very early on. So the defendant must have intended to kill the victim or cause grievous bodily harm. So without both of these being attributable to the crime, we cannot and do not call it murder in the UK. Then we have terms like involuntary or voluntary manslaughter, gross negligence, manslaughter, etc. So you would still get done, but we call it entirely different things. And of course, it would then mean you don't get that mandatory life sentence. Right, okay.
SPEAKER_00Tell me. Yeah. I have heard I might be mixing up American and UK systems, but if you're doing something illegal and as a result of that illegal behaviour someone dies, that can still be charged as murder, no?
SPEAKER_04Um well it would depend what the illegal act was, but no, it would be manslaughter. Because like I said, there has to be the men's ray. You have to have intended to kill that person. Okay. Yeah.
SPEAKER_00Ignore that.
SPEAKER_03No, no, that was a good question. That was a beautiful question.
SPEAKER_04We will do an episode on different types and stages of assault, like common assault, actually bodily harm, and grievous bodily harm. We'll get into properly what they mean and how they're ranked, but for this episode, as we're talking about murder, I'm gonna need to quickly go through the GBH rule in murder. So the GBH rule, GBH meaning grievous bodily harm, is one of those slightly counterintuitive parts of criminal law. It means that if someone intends to cause really serious harm and the victim dies, the law can treat that as murder even if death was never intended or even thought about. This idea was firmly recognised in the case of Crown Against Vickers in 1957. Vickers broke into a shop and during the burglary violently assaulted the elderly shop owner. She died later from her injuries. The court said that if someone intends to cause grievous bodily harm, really serious injury as it's defined, that that intention is enough for murder if death follows. It's the law recognising that choosing serious violence carries a deadly risk. Here, the court said that an intention to cause GBH is enough for the mental element of murder. So the men's rare. The same approach was discussed in DPP against Smith in 1961 and later confirmed in Crown Against Cunningham in 1981, which cemented the position that intent to cause serious harm can ground a murder conviction. So in DPP against Smith, Smith was trying to escape police and drove off with an officer clinging to the car. The officer was thrown into traffic and killed. The House of Lords discussed how juries should think about intent and foresight, and at the time suggested that consequences a reasonable person would foresee could be used to infer intent. Okay? So this is the objective approach. So this is saying objectively to a reasonable Joe blogs on the street, the defendant should have foreseen that that was going to cause really serious harm.
SPEAKER_03Okay.
SPEAKER_04So this legal test has evolved since, but this case still sits in the background of how courts think about serious violence leading to death. So this objective approach actually is different now. And we're gonna get to that. So in Crown Against Cunningham, that helped confirm the modern position on recklessness, and it changed how the law thinks about the men's rear and this objective, subjective approach. So Mr. Cunningham broke into a property to steal coins from a gas meter, he pulled it off the wall, and that caused a gas leak into the neighbouring house where it made someone who was sleeping really ill. At trial, the jury were told that acting maliciously meant behaving wickedly, but on appeal, the court said that that wasn't right. So it was basically the judge, because in the definition, there's this word malicious, and the judge had guided the jury on this word and and sort of how to interpret it, and said that it means someone behaving wickedly. When it was appealed, they really played out this sort of jury direction and said that this was wrong. Saying they said that what matters is actually whether Cunningham himself actually realised there was a risk and went ahead anyway. So this is changing it to the subjective. It changed how we understand liability when it comes to the men's rear. It should be in a subjective approach rather than the objective approach. So for it to be objective, we're saying that any reasonable person must have sort of foreseen what would happen. But with Cunningham, the appeal judge changed this and granted the appeal based on the grounds of subjective reason. It is how the defendant themselves view the risk or the action. If the defendant as an individual didn't understand that ripping the gas meter off the wall would cause a gas leak, then he doesn't possess the men's rear. Put together, the cases tell a story about responsibility. The law is essentially saying if you choose to inflict grave harm, you take the risk that life may be lost and you may be judged as harshly as if you meant the worst outcome. But again, this is subjective nowadays. Are we following so far? Because that was a lot. Yes. Took me a few times and a few explanations to get it fully.
SPEAKER_03No, it makes sense.
SPEAKER_00Good. And w when this sort of case is tried, do they does the jury get the option to does the prosecution just ask the question, is this murder? after having explained that, or can they find them not guilty of murder but still guilty of GBH?
SPEAKER_04So with Cunningham, no one died.
SPEAKER_00Right.
SPEAKER_04So that would have been the GBH.
SPEAKER_00Gotcha.
SPEAKER_04And so what I can gather is that obviously he was convicted for the GBH and then it went to appeal and it was overturned.
SPEAKER_00I see, okay.
SPEAKER_04Whereas before it had always been that I guess they were saying a reasonable person should expect that the ripping off the gas meter. But but Cunningham really didn't know. Okay. Does that answer your question? Yeah. Okay. So far we know that the actus rais is the physical element of the crime or the murder. It is the conduct that has been used by the defendant in the committing of the crime. The conduct element is what the defendant must have actually done or failed to do in some cases. The but for test is basically the law asking a simple question. But for what the defendant did, would the person have died when they did? If the answer is no, then their actions are treated as a factual cause of death. It's the starting point in murder cases, a way of checking whether the defendant actually set the fatal chain of events in motion. We're going to get to some examples on this. Of course, it's not the whole story because courts still look at whether anything else broke that chain, but it's the first step in working out responsibility. So imagine someone locks a person in a room during a house fire and they die from smoke inhalation. But for being locked in, they could have escaped, so there we have the causation. The act directly affected the result. Now have a think about what happened in Crown Against White in 1910, where a man poisoned his mother's drink and she died. But the caveat is she died of a heart attack completely unrelated to the poison that she had drunk. What happens here?
SPEAKER_00I think you've told us about this one before. And I think the guy got was done for murder, even though.
SPEAKER_03I've not heard this. Oh, that's right. Was it just manslaughter or was it well no, it wouldn't be manslaughter, but no, it wouldn't be related to him.
SPEAKER_04For the poison, she still would have died. Yeah. So causation fails. I think he I think he got done for attempted.
SPEAKER_00Right, yeah, that makes more sense.
SPEAKER_04You don't get off completely. We still get you.
SPEAKER_00Oh no, but is attempted murder still life or no?
SPEAKER_04I have no idea actually.
SPEAKER_00Because it's kind of silly if it's not life, because you you're still exactly the same crime, but you're patted it.
SPEAKER_04I doubt it is.
SPEAKER_00That's so that's so interesting. Because you're still doing the same thing.
SPEAKER_04I tell you what, I'll look into that for the next one and I'll give you an update. I'll give you a little preview, small slideshow at the beginning of the next one on attempted murder.
SPEAKER_00Amazing.
SPEAKER_04So the conduct must be voluntary as well for most crimes, although there is a defense of automatism. Any guesses?
SPEAKER_00Go on.
SPEAKER_04You know. So an example of getting off on automatism would be you're driving along on a summer's day with the car window open and a swarm of bees invades your car, you swerve, cause an accident, kill people. You would have the defense of automatism in an instance such as that. It's automatic, it's involuntary.
SPEAKER_03You didn't mean to do what were you gonna do?
SPEAKER_04Yeah, it's not even reckless. Like you had no control.
SPEAKER_03Yes. Makes sense.
SPEAKER_04Now to the men's rear. Remind us what that is? The intent to do so.
SPEAKER_00Guilty mind.
SPEAKER_03Yeah, guilty mind.
SPEAKER_04Yeah. The mind behind the crime. So this has two types, intention and recklessness. So we know what intention is, but what is recklessness? From that example we saw earlier in Cunningham, what might be another example of a reckless act?
SPEAKER_00Well, I guess the the one you gave of locking someone in the in a room, maybe? Is that reckless?
SPEAKER_04I think that was that I don't think that was reckless, though.
SPEAKER_00Is that not reckless, locking someone in a room they can't get out of?
SPEAKER_04See, I'm not even sure if that's a real case. That's just an example. Right. Um Would it be something like the bees? Recklessness, no. No.
SPEAKER_00You were reckless in keeping your window rolled down. Bees might have got it.
SPEAKER_04So an example of a reckless act would be um throwing a bottle in a nightclub full of people.
SPEAKER_00Right, okay.
SPEAKER_04Okay. It might be a builder on some scaffold and just picking up bricks and throwing them onto the pavement behind them. Those kind of things are reckless. So you should be able to foresee a risk.
SPEAKER_03Yeah. Yeah. Okay.
SPEAKER_04And you do it anyway.
SPEAKER_03Mm-hmm.
SPEAKER_04The definition of recklessness is when a person acts recklessly, believe it or not. Oh wow. And when he is aware of a risk that exists or will exist, and it is in the circumstances known to him unreasonable to take that risk. Okay? Yep.
SPEAKER_00Unreasonable according to who.
SPEAKER_04Like Well, we oh funny, we get into reason later. Yeah. But yeah, I mean, well, this is the thing, unreasonable to who? But we have the objective, subjective. So uh you know, w we used to say before, right, well, that builder's absolutely reckless because Joe blogs on the street, which should have been able to foresee, but then we take the actual person. But I think we yes, Cunningham, because I don't know. If I ripped some a gas meter off the wall, would I really be able to foresee? I don't know that I would think about it. Maybe the hissing and the smell of gas might have well, maybe afterwards, but not like maybe just had COVID, couldn't smell anything. Yeah. Yeah. So so we used to say by anybody else's reason, but now we say by the individual's reason. So we would have to talk to the builder.
SPEAKER_00I see.
SPEAKER_04Um, I know I get I suppose we sh we would in that case, if we really want to go into it, we would say, Well, you're a builder.
SPEAKER_00Yes.
SPEAKER_04That's your profession. Oh, I see.
SPEAKER_00I thought you were saying builders are stupid. No.
SPEAKER_04Immediately, immediately a free man. Because builders. No, if that's your profession as an individual who is a builder in that trade and has been a builder for ten years.
SPEAKER_00Gotcha. You should probably know not to throw bricks around.
SPEAKER_04Yeah. Yeah. Now there are limits. So not everyone who plays a role in a tragic chain of events becomes criminally responsible. The law draws a line at trivial involvement. So I'm gonna do a you now and try to say a Latin phrase and butcher it. The full Latin phrase for the line drawn is de minimis non curat lex. Ten out of ten. Which translates to the law does not concern itself with trifles.
SPEAKER_00Interesting. So dessert-related instance, right out.
SPEAKER_04That's exactly what I thought. That took me a while. Yes. Yes. An example that the law may not trifle itself with would be if someone cut off an ambulance with its blue lights on, causing a small delay in which the patient in the ambulance went on to die. That is too trivial an act and would not be deemed criminal. Gotcha. Makes sense. There this was questioned. I haven't written this down, so don't quote me on any of this. But there was this de Minimus was brought up in a case, I think it was Crown Against Kimsey, where basically this lad had been in a car race, and the car race um caused the crash. He crashed and he killed people. And then it was about whether the act of being in a race was substantial enough. Um to con to to convict. I don't know what he was convicted of, but they did decide that that was substantial enough.
SPEAKER_00That was recent, wasn't it?
SPEAKER_04I have no idea. Kimsey was that.
SPEAKER_00I think I heard about that when there was news, but I could be making that up.
SPEAKER_04It won't have been in the last sort of ten years because I think it would have stood out to me more. Yeah. Now, have a look at this phrase. A break in causation. Think about what it might mean. What might we mean by a break in causation? And even better, can you think of any examples? Given what you've learnt, what might be a break in causation?
SPEAKER_00Oh god. I mean, is it when it the thing that you did to cause the death isn't directly responsible for the then? No.
SPEAKER_04Yes.
SPEAKER_00Yeah? Yeah.
SPEAKER_04It would be more along the lines of where something else happens between the act to cause the death.
SPEAKER_00So what, you stab someone, they blunder around, and in doing so they fall off a cliff?
SPEAKER_04No.
SPEAKER_00Oh, okay.
SPEAKER_04Because then I think we could use Right, do you think we may be well, we may be able to use the but for. But for had you stabbed him, would he have stumbled around and fallen off the cliff? No. So that's still direct. We're gonna get into some examples.
SPEAKER_00Go on.
SPEAKER_04First, I'm gonna tell you about novus actus interveniens. Oh, sounds like a disease. It does. Ooh, yeah. I think it would include boils if that was. I thought intestines. Oh, okay. Okay. Well, yeah. Yeah, intestines. So it's a Latin phrase used in case law and it translates to say a new intervening act. It's used when something happens after the defendant's actions that's so independent and significant that it breaks the chain of causation. So the law may say the original person is no longer responsible for what happened in the end. So using what we've learned so far, we're gonna have a little thought experiment.
SPEAKER_00Oh, exciting.
SPEAKER_04Let's see what you guys think might constitute a break in causation for murder. A man is shot in the stomach by a rival gang member. He goes straight to hospital for treatment. He receives treatment and goes home about a week later. He's expected to make a full recovery. However, he is sent home with a medication that he has a bad reaction to and dies at home two days after leaving hospital. What do we think here? Are we charging the defendant with murder in this case?
SPEAKER_03I thought no immediately.
unknownOkay.
SPEAKER_00See, I would think no, but it's reminding me of that one with the Jehovah's Witness that maybe you're gonna Are you gonna come on to that one? Okay. Oh, we'll cut that out.
SPEAKER_04No, no, no, no, no, not at all. Okay, so Brittany, you said no. Yeah why?
SPEAKER_03Well he shot the guy, he didn't die right away. It wasn't the bullet wound that killed him, it was the medication. It's not murder, it's attempted murder. Okay. That's my thought. Are we in agreement, Chris?
SPEAKER_00Yeah, I guess. I'm not convinced.
SPEAKER_03Okay.
SPEAKER_00I think I think it'd still be murder because mm oh no, no, mm-oh, I don't know. No, okay, I'm going no. Because it was the medication, right, that actually killed it was the cause of the murder. And I don't think Yeah. Cause of the death of the death, yeah, sorry.
SPEAKER_04So I have four examples here, and then I have four stories that will answer the example questions.
SPEAKER_01Okay.
SPEAKER_04Do you want me to go example story answer the question, example, answer, example, or do you want me to give you all four and then give us all four? So our second example a woman is stabbed twice in the chest in a hate attack just outside of her home. The assailant runs away, but people who witnessed the attack rush to her aid, so she's taken to hospital where she needs a blood transfusion, or she will die. For personal reasons, she refuses and dies. This one murder. Okay.
SPEAKER_00Yeah. I think we know this one, right?
SPEAKER_03Why? I do not remember. I know you told me. My only thought is pretend you don't know the case. Okay. Okay. My only thought is it says for personal reasons. She denied that. This wasn't something else that made her not able to get that blood transfusion. That was her decision. She denied it because of her actions. Well, actually.
SPEAKER_00We should charge her with murder.
SPEAKER_03That didn't come out as as I wanted.
SPEAKER_00You got to take the victim as you find them, right?
SPEAKER_03That's the sorry. I'm talking about.
SPEAKER_00Sorry. Sorry, Henry.
SPEAKER_03No, no, I'm done. Go ahead.
SPEAKER_00Oh, I thought you had. You got to take the victim as you find them, right?
SPEAKER_04That's so uh yeah, I think what Britney's trying to say is there was no intervening act, right? Yes. No novus actor. Yeah, okay. And Chris is suggesting that even if we don't know the state of the victim, we have to take them as we find them. So the fact that that was something already part of her and contributed to the death, the defendant has to take her as is. We've got two more. Okay, so these are a little different. So the first one: a young man of about 21 is seriously injured in an assault on a night out and is being taken to hospital in an ambulance. On the way, the ambulance is hit by lightning. This causes a crash and kills the victim.
SPEAKER_00See, I would say not murder for that, unless like the guy was obviously gonna die. Like if his wounds were so bad. We can't know what to do. Or we can't know that, okay. Does it not make a difference?
SPEAKER_04Probably not.
SPEAKER_00Okay. Well, if it's probably not, I'm guess I would change my answer to murder then.
SPEAKER_04I imagine it doesn't make a difference?
SPEAKER_00Yeah, because if you could say he was stabbed lightly, as much as you can stab someone lightly. You're still getting taken to hospital and you crash. Oh no, yeah, okay. No.
SPEAKER_04You couldn't know he was definitely gonna die.
SPEAKER_00I get that, yeah. Alright, in that case, not I'm going not murder.
SPEAKER_03Yeah, I'm going not murder. Why, Brittany? Lightning.
SPEAKER_00That's the that's the causes actus. No, novus actus intestines. Intestines, yeah. Alright.
SPEAKER_04And the last one a man uses his pregnant girlfriend as a human shield when cornered by armed police. The police shoot her and she dies.
SPEAKER_03Murder.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, I'd say it was murder, right? Why?
SPEAKER_03He used her as a human shield.
SPEAKER_04Okay, we're not saying it's not morally wrong, but it's a murder.
SPEAKER_03I don't think the police should have shot her. Maybe I'm assuming in my mind they did it accidentally.
SPEAKER_04You'd hope I would hope so. Or let's let's say he's armed. Yes. The defendant. Yeah.
SPEAKER_00So see, I don't think that's a new a new act unrelated to him, right?
SPEAKER_03Hmm.
SPEAKER_00Does it matter that she's pregnant? No. Right.
SPEAKER_03Oh, that's a good question though. Is it? Well, yeah.
SPEAKER_00Okay. Yeah, it's not an unrelated act to him because he was he's been surrounded by armed police already, presumably. Right?
SPEAKER_04Okay, so yeah, you don't think there's a breaking causation here. Exactly. Are you in agreement? Yeah. Okay, how do we feel? Are our brains working? Yes. I think so. Well, I'm not going to give you any answers yet. These were all real cases, so you can sit back as I tell you the stories, and we can see if you were right. So the first example I gave you was roughly that of the case Crown Against Jordan. On the 4th of May 1956, US Air Force Corporal James Clinton Jordan stabbed Walter Beaumont in a cafe in Hull. Beaumont then spent a week in hospital in a critical condition where he eventually died of bronchial pneumonia. Does anyone know if that's supposed to be bronchial? I think it's bronchial.
SPEAKER_00I think it's bronchial.
SPEAKER_04Bronchial pneumonia. Jordan pled not guilty to the murder, but was convicted and ordered to be executed at Leeds Prison. This is 56. 56. So this conviction was appealed. During the appeal, there was new evidence presented to the court that wasn't in the original trial. This was that, whilst in hospital, Walter Beaumont had been given a large dose of a medication that he was allergic to. According to the judgment from the appeal court, the stab wound had penetrated the intestine in two places, but it was mainly healed at the time of death. With a view to preventing infection, it was thought right to administer the antibiotic teramycin.
SPEAKER_00Teramycin.
SPEAKER_04I wouldn't have known either. I knew pteramycin didn't sound right. It's a good job you're here.
SPEAKER_00You're welcome. Who would correct you all the time? I know. Usually incorrectly.
SPEAKER_04No, always correctly. It was said in court that there was a substantial doubt that the stab wound inflicted by Jordan had caused the death of Beaumont. Mr. Jeffrey Veal told the court. That's a good name. Geoffrey Veal. Yeah, Geoffrey Veil, yeah, it is actually. I feel if he was a chef, that would be even better. So he told the court that bronchial pneumonia was the cause of death eight days after the stabbing. He submitted that the death did not result from the stabbing, but that there was an error of judgment in the treatment given to Beaumont. He went on to say that the bronchial pneumonia was caused for two reasons. The first related to the use of pteramycin, and the second to the abnormal quantity of fluid which was injected into the patient two days before his death. What do you think happened?
SPEAKER_02Oof.
SPEAKER_00The fact that it's become case law makes me think he got off.
SPEAKER_04Mm-hmm.
SPEAKER_00Right.
SPEAKER_04Good thinking. The conviction was overturned, and James Jordan. Well, I've written here walked a free man, but I doubt it. I don't think he did. He didn't die.
unknownOkay.
SPEAKER_04I think that's what I'm trying to say. He did he didn't get the death penalty. Yeah.
SPEAKER_00Do we know if he was hung or not?
SPEAKER_04Because he would still well, no, because you couldn't get attempted murder. Because he didn't die of it.
SPEAKER_03GBH, right? Must be. So he left court. Um, and then says sadly we don't know what happened to him.
SPEAKER_04Okay, so well, it looks like he did walk a free man then, because he obviously wasn't sent back to jail if we don't know what happened to him. Yeah.
SPEAKER_00We'll have to look him up on Ancestry after this.
SPEAKER_04Yeah. I bet he has full-on, yeah, like full-on family walking around.
SPEAKER_03For next week, I'll I'll send over an update and one of you can can tell the update when I look him up on Ancestry.
SPEAKER_04Ooh, okay. This was a turning point for case law because in the original trial it was said that it had never occurred to the prosecution, defence, judge, or jury to question if that stabbing actually caused the death and the trial had proceeded on that basis. So then, of course, when this was later appealed and overturned, we now have this as an informative case law that is still cited and considered today when there may have been a break in causation in a death. In case anyone was wondering whether this could be a case for a gross negligence manslaughter charge for the doctors involved that administered the treatment to Beaumont that medical practitioners in court had said was palpably wrong, it was reported later that after a full investigation, Leeds Regional Hospital Board had unanimously approved a report fully vindicating the staff of Hull Royal Infirmary in the treatment of Walter Beaumont. And in case anyone wasn't wondering, because they've no idea what gross negligent manslaughter in a medical setting might look like, keep your ears peeled for that episode coming out eventually.
SPEAKER_00Exciting.
SPEAKER_04That one will be so interesting. I'm ready. Can't wait. The second example I gave you revolves around the case of Crown Against Blau?
SPEAKER_00Blauy.
SPEAKER_04Blauy? Blau Blau Blau. On the late afternoon of May 3, 1974, Ronald Conrad Blau walked into the home of 18-year-old Jacqueline Woodhead and propositioned her for sex. Woodhead refused and Blau stabbed her, causing serious injury. One stab wound pierced her lung. Blau then ran away. Jacqueline made her way outside of her house looking for help and she collapsed outside a neighbour's doorway. The neighbour found her and she was taken to hospital by ambulance. Jacqueline was admitted into intensive care and assessed by a surgical registrar who concluded that she needed surgery and as she had lost a serious amount of blood, also a blood transfusion. When she realized that there would be a blood transfusion, Jacqueline refused treatment on account of her being a Jehovah's Witness, which doesn't allow blood transfusions. The judgment reads, To have one, she said, would be contrary to her religious beliefs as a Jehovah's Witness. She was told that if she did not have a blood transfusion, she would die. She said that she did not care if she did die. She was asked to acknowledge in writing that she had refused to have a blood transfusion under any circumstances, and she did so. Jacqueline was admitted into hospital at 7.30 pm and had died by 12.45 pm the next day. In the original trial, the defence made their argument that her refusal to have a blood transfusion had broken the chain of causation between the stabbing and her death. What are we thinking at the minute? Do we agree that there's a break in causation?
SPEAKER_00See, I don't think there I don't think there's a break in causation, but I think this other principle that we talked about maybe overrides that. What other principle? Well, they would go together, wouldn't they? I suppose they would, yeah. The principle of like f uh taking the victim as you find them would mean that you're not. There's no breaking.
SPEAKER_04Yeah, exactly. What do you think? You agree? Agreed. The prosecution submitted that the judge should direct the jury to convict because when the law was applied to the facts, there was only one possible verdict, manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility. This manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility didn't have anything to do with the break-in causation. It was accepted that he had diminished mental capacity at the time of the crime, so that was a separate thing.
SPEAKER_01Right.
SPEAKER_04So we're we're losing the men's rear there a little bit, so not murder. The judge in the end told the jury, this is in the original trial, to use their common sense. He also cited some similar case law and left it up to them to decide what they thought.
SPEAKER_00See, that's interesting because I thought juries were supposed to be fact-finders and the judge had to decide on the law, right? So it's interesting that he gave them case law and told them to work it out for themselves. What I thought would have happened, which obviously isn't isn't the case, is that the defence would say, look, there's no case to answer for this charge of manslaughter because you know, something happened there was a the cause of death was her refusing the blood transfusion. And the the judge would then make a ruling on that and decide whether to let the jury decide uh, you know, guilty or not guilty on manslaughter, or guilty or not guilty on GBH.
SPEAKER_04But we only really know specifically what happened in the appeal court.
SPEAKER_00Oh, so they did appeal it, right. Right, I see. So I'm getting to that. Sorry.
SPEAKER_04No, that's okay.
SPEAKER_00Jumping ahead. This is interesting.
SPEAKER_04I'm so glad. Ultimately, Ronald Blau was convicted of manslaughter by diminished responsibility and GBH with intent. Ah, okay. Okay, so this may answer your question because they had both. They had both. So they could have just found him guilty of GBH with intent.
SPEAKER_00Oh, I see, the jury, okay. But they actually did both. Right, okay.
SPEAKER_04So there were two charges and they went for both. So this conviction was appealed based on the grounds that the trial judge had misdirected the jury on causation. It was argued that Blau shouldn't be found guilty of the manslaughter by diminished responsibility because the refusal of treatment from the victim broke the chain of causation. The prosecution submitted that the jury should have been directed that if they thought Jacqueline's decision not to have a blood transfusion was an unreasonable one, got this unreasonable again, then the chain of causation would have been broken. The appeal judge disagreed with this. They said that should we accept that, we would then have the issue of reasonable by who. So the problem comes up that what a Jehovah's Witness might find reasonable on this matter may not align with what a humanist would find reasonable on the matter, or any Joe Bloggs on the street who might have a completely different idea of what is reasonable also. So the statement from the appeals court judge says that the physical cause of death in this case was the bleeding into the plural cavity. Yes. Any takers, no? Arising from the penetration of the lung. This had not been brought about by any decision made by the deceased.
SPEAKER_01Gotcha.
SPEAKER_04But by the stab wound. So the conviction was held and Blau's life sentence remained. The appeals court judge reconfirmed the case law up to that point that one must take the victim as you find them, stating, This is in our judgment, means the whole man, not just the physical man. It does not lie in the mouth of the assailant to say that his victim's religious beliefs which inhibited him from accepting certain kinds of treatment were unreasonable. The question for decision is what caused her death, the answer is the stab wound. The fact that the victim refused to stop this end coming about did not break the causal connection between the act and the death. And regarding the Crown Court judge's direction to the jury, the appeal court judgment stated finally that the judge is entitled to tell the jury what the result of that application will be. In this case, the judge would have been entitled to have told the jury that the defendant's stab wound was an operative cause of death. How we feel?
SPEAKER_00Good. Good. I like that one.
SPEAKER_04So our third example, the lightning strike on the ambulance. Now, unfortunately, or fortunately, you might say, the ambulance lightning strike example is just hypothetical.
SPEAKER_03Okay.
SPEAKER_04And because it's never happened yet, we can't strictly say which way that would go with a jury trial. So guy seriously assaulted in a nightclub, gets an ambulance, lightning strike, dies.
SPEAKER_00You said not murder, didn't we? I think so.
SPEAKER_04Yeah, so you were right. It would be very likely not murder because a lightning strike would probably be treated as a novus actus intervenience, an independent, unforeseeable event breaking the chain of causation. For murder, the prosecution must show that the defendant's act caused the death. If a completely independent event, like lightning striking the ambulance, kills the victim, the original injury is no longer the operating cause. Chain of causation is broken, so liability for murder would most likely fall away. The fourth example I gave you was that of crown against Paget. Paget. The defendant who was armed with a shotgun and cartridges, shot at police officers who were trying to arrest him for various offences. He had with him a 16-year-old girl who was pregnant by him and against her will used her body to shield him from any retaliation by the officers. He fired shots and the officers returned his fire and the girl was killed. The defendant was charged with her murder. And we were saying murder. He would convict. So he was acquitted of murder, but convicted of manslaughter by a jury.
SPEAKER_00Interesting.
SPEAKER_04Awful. Now just quickly think back to the beginning of the episode. Why do you think the defendant was acquitted of murder in this case?
SPEAKER_00I guess because he didn't intend to kill the girl, right?
SPEAKER_04He didn't possess the men's rear. It couldn't be proven that he had intended the girl's death. You may argue that given the circumstances he's shooting at armed police, they're highly likely to return fire, and therefore it's virtually certain that the girl will be shot. Case law shows that the jury is entitled to find intention from foresight of virtual certainty, but is not bound to find intention.
SPEAKER_00Gotcha, interesting.
SPEAKER_04But he had the actus race, his actions which directly led to her death. The judgment stated occasionally a specific issue of causation might arise as, for example, where the intervention of a third person, so in this case the police, might be regarded as the sole cause of the victim's death or novus actus interveniens. But said a reasonable act performed for the purpose of self-preservation, including a reasonable act of self-defence, does not operate as a novus actus interveniens, followed by an act done in the execution of a legal duty. In the present case, the jury must have found that the defendant did two unlawful and dangerous acts, i.e. firing at the police and using the girl in self-defence as a shield when the police might well fire shots in his direction. Either act could result in the death of the girl, and this constitutes the actus reus for manslaughter, and therefore no legitimate criticism could be made of the direction given by the trial judge on the issue of causation. The case was thrown out, conviction remained.
SPEAKER_00Interesting. I'm surprised that the jury found him not guilty.
SPEAKER_04Of murder, there was no men's rear.
SPEAKER_00I know, I know, but So was that charge still put to them though? Uh because there was no men's rare, they it wasn't.
SPEAKER_04No, he was acquitted of murder, so yes it must have been.
SPEAKER_00That's interesting.
SPEAKER_04That was a red herring's law lesson on a breaking causation.
SPEAKER_03Good job. That was amazing.
SPEAKER_00I love murder.
SPEAKER_04At least learning about it.
SPEAKER_00Yes.
SPEAKER_03Um, one of the first no, not one of the first dates we went on. It was maybe like You murdered someone. No. When did we go to London? Was that like not quite a year into knowing each other? So we took the train down super early in the morning. We got down there at like eight, so we got there early. Spent the whole day, took the train back. We had some glasses of wine.
SPEAKER_00I was gonna say, we spent the entire day, seeing things, drinking, uh, eating.
SPEAKER_03It was great. And we were walking around the Tower of London, and instead of saying, This is where Henry VIII killed people, very loudly he goes, and this is where I kill people. And like I am still, I still laugh about it. I was literally doubled over on the sidewalk in the Tower of London, like almost pinging my pants, laughing so hard. And I remember you got so red in the face. I was like, this is the funniest thing I've ever heard. I had been to London many, many times.
SPEAKER_00You've been to London more than me.
SPEAKER_03Yes.
SPEAKER_00I was excited to see the Tower of London anyway.
SPEAKER_03This is where I kill people. Why do you say it like that? I think we had to have one. Oh, oh, we had had a lot of wine.
SPEAKER_04And I think obviously you didn't mean to say were you Henry VIII in a past life?
SPEAKER_00You never know. That would explain a lot.
SPEAKER_04It would explain a lot.
SPEAKER_00Explain all the women.
SPEAKER_04So I suppose my only real source is Teaside University.
SPEAKER_02Love it.
SPEAKER_00I was gonna say that sounds like a lecture she's had.
SPEAKER_04I swear I didn't just go through my lecture books. I I designed this all by myself. I'm so proud. I'm learning all of this in the master's degree right now, but I did also use Bailey.org for some of the case information. Nice.
SPEAKER_03Amazing, thank you so much.
SPEAKER_04Thank you for watching.
SPEAKER_03That was such a good one.
SPEAKER_04Tune it in next week for a real good tale. Oh, we've got it.
SPEAKER_00Don't have a real good time.