R v Jordan

R v Jordan
Court Court of Appeal
Full case name R v Jordan (James Clinton)
Decided 1 January 1956
Citation(s) (1956) 40 Cr App R 152
Keywords
Novus actus interveniens; causation

R v Jordan (1956) 40 Cr App R 152 is an English criminal law case establishing that exceptional medical negligence may constitute a novus actus interveniens, capable of absolving a defendant of liability for any subsequent injury or death.

Facts

The appellant and three others – all serving members of the United States Airforce – became involved in a disturbance at a café in Hull, with the appellant stabbing a man named Beaumont, who was subsequently admitted to hospital.[1] It was conceded by the defence that the appellant had stabbed Beaumont, but after uncovering medical evidence not available at trial, an appeal was lodged on the grounds that the medical treatment the victim had received was so negligent as to break the appellant's liability.

Judgment

Ordinarily, the circumstances and medical treatment following serious bodily harm are not relevant in establishing a defendant's liability for his acts. Where the original wound or injury caused by the defendant is still an 'operating cause' of death, negligent medical treatment will not constitute a novus actus interveniens.[2]

However, in the judgment of Hallett J, it was conceded that the death of the victim was not "consequent upon the wound inflicted."[3] Hallett summed up the fresh medical evidence as such:

“ 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 an antibiotic, terramycin.

It was agreed by the two additional witnesses that, that was the proper course to take, and a proper dose was administered. Some people, however, are intolerant to terramycin, and Beaumont was one of those people. After the initial doses he developed diarrhoea, which was only properly attributable, in the opinion of those doctors, to the fact that the patient was intolerant to terramycin. Thereupon the administration of terramycin was stopped, but unfortunately the very next day the resumption of such administration was ordered by another doctor and it was recommenced the following day. The two doctors both take the same view about it. Dr. Simpson said that to introduce a poisonous substance after the intolerance of the patient was shown was palpably wrong. Mr. Blackburn agreed.[4]

 ”

The Court took the view that based on these facts – and that the original stab wound had healed – a reasonable jury would not be satisfied that the defendant's acts had been the material cause of the victim's death. As such, the conviction was quashed.[5]

See also

References

  1. ↑ (1956) 40 Cr App R 152, at 153
  2. ↑ This is still the case, following the later case of R v Smith (Thomas Joseph) [1959] 2 QB 35, where at 42-43, it is stated that: "It seems to the court that if at the time of death the original wound is still an operating cause and a substantial cause, then the death can properly be said to be the result of the wound, albeit that some other cause of death is also operating."
  3. ↑ (1956) 40 Cr App R 152, at 154
  4. ↑ (1956) 40 Cr App R 152, at 156
  5. ↑ (1956) 40 Cr App R 152, at 158
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 12/4/2014. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.