Essay question: 'The rules on causation in English criminal law are policy-driven and incoherent, and the treatment of omissions reflects unjustifiable individualism.' Discuss.
---
Introduction
This question invites evaluation of two foundational actus reus doctrines: causation (when a defendant is legally responsible for a prohibited result) and omissions (when failure to act grounds liability). The proposition claims both are incoherent and reflect contestable policy choices—causation as unprincipled, omissions as excessively libertarian. This essay argues that while both areas involve policy judgment, they are neither incoherent nor unjustifiable. The rules on causation balance metaphysical and normative considerations in a pragmatic framework suited to criminal adjudication; the law of omissions is cautious but principled, reflecting the value the common law places on individual liberty and the boundaries between law and morality.
Causation: policy-driven or principled?
The law of causation comprises factual causation (but-for) and legal causation (operative and substantial cause, novus actus rules, and the thin-skull principle). Critics such as Tadros and Ashworth acknowledge that these tests blend empirical and evaluative elements: the but-for test is ostensibly factual, but legal causation is frankly normative. Does this render the doctrine 'policy-driven and incoherent'?
Hart and Honoré argue that causation rules reflect ordinary language and common-sense intuitions about responsibility. The but-for test captures a minimal factual connection; legal causation refines this by asking whether the defendant's act was a substantial (more than de minimis) and operative (still in play at the time of the result) cause. The novus actus interveniens rules track the idea that fully voluntary intervening acts are new 'springs of action' that displace earlier causes. On this view, the doctrine is coherent: it applies layered tests, each serving a distinct function.
However, the rules are undeniably shaped by policy. Ashworth and Horder observe that the substantial-cause test leaves significant discretion to juries: what is 'substantial' varies with context. The thin-skull rule (R v Blaue) holds defendants liable for unforeseeable consequences arising from the victim's characteristics (physical or religious), which cannot rest on foreseeability or control. Instead it reflects a policy judgment: defendants who initiate unlawful violence should not benefit from the victim's peculiarities. Similarly, the reluctance to treat medical negligence as a novus actus (R v Smith; R v Cheshire) reflects a policy that victims of criminal violence should not be denied redress because healthcare is imperfect.
Is this 'incoherent'? Only if one insists causation must be a purely metaphysical concept. Gardner and other philosophers argue that true causation is a matter of natural science, not policy. But criminal law's function is normative: it asks not 'did D cause X?' in an abstract sense, but 'is it fair to hold D responsible for X?' Legal causation is best understood as a responsibility-attribution rule, not a causal mechanism. On this reading, policy sensitivity is a feature, not a bug. The doctrine is coherent in its purpose: it ensures defendants are liable for results within the scope of their culpable risk-creation, while shielding them from truly independent or remote consequences.
The charge of incoherence has more bite in niche cases. The treatment of multiple sufficient causes (where two acts, each fatal alone, occur simultaneously) is uncertain: but-for causation fails, yet both should be liable. English courts have not definitively resolved this. Similarly, the varying emphasis on foreseeability across novus actus cases—foreseeability matters in R v Pagett and R v Roberts, but the thin-skull rule ignores it—creates doctrinal tension. Yet these are marginal puzzles; the core rules are settled and applied consistently.
Intervening acts and autonomy: Kennedy and Blaue
The treatment of intervening acts illustrates the interplay of principle and policy. In R v Kennedy (No 2), the victim's self-injection was held to break the chain: an autonomous, informed adult's voluntary act relieved the supplier of liability for manslaughter. The House of Lords invoked the principle of individual autonomy: the victim chose to inject, and that choice was his own.
Contrast R v Blaue, where the victim's refusal of treatment—equally a choice grounded in deeply held beliefs—did not break the chain. The defendant took his victim as he found her. Is this inconsistent? Williams and others argue it is: if autonomy matters in Kennedy, it should matter in Blaue.
The courts distinguish on grounds that are ultimately normative. In Kennedy, respecting autonomy means acknowledging the victim as the author of his own fate; holding the supplier liable would treat the victim as a passive instrument, undermining dignity. In Blaue, by contrast, the victim exercised a right (refusal of treatment) that the law protects; imposing liability on the defendant does not negate her autonomy but reflects the fact that he set the causal sequence in motion. The policy is clear: criminal attackers should not escape liability because their victims hold minority beliefs.
This is policy-driven but not arbitrary. It reflects a hierarchy of values: autonomy in the sense of being the active agent (Kennedy) outweighs autonomy in the sense of making choices about one's own body (Blaue) when apportioning criminal blame. One may disagree with the hierarchy, but it is a reasoned judgment, not incoherence.
Omissions: unjustifiable individualism?
English law imposes no general duty to rescue. Liability for omission requires a specific duty to act, arising from statute, contract, relationship, voluntary assumption, creation of danger, or public office. Critics, particularly those influenced by continental European law, argue this is morally indefensible: the law should require easy rescue (as in France and Germany). Ashworth has advocated reform along these lines, arguing that individualism should not trump basic human solidarity.
The orthodox justification rests on liberal principles. Joel Feinberg and Michael Moore argue that the distinction between acts and omissions is morally significant: acts cause harm; omissions merely fail to prevent it. The former is more culpable. Moreover, imposing general duties to rescue raises difficult questions: what counts as 'peril'? how much effort or risk must the rescuer undertake? who decides? The common law avoids these by confining duties to contexts where special relationships or prior conduct ground a clear obligation.
Furthermore, criminalising failure to rescue risks overreach. Simester notes that criminal law should be a last resort, reserved for serious wrongs. Moral duties (helping a stranger) should not automatically become legal duties. This does not mean the law is indifferent: tort law, social norms, and morality regulate such conduct. The criminal law's restraint reflects its unique stigma and coercive power.
That said, the existing categories are under-theorised and sometimes arbitrary. Why does a contractual duty to a third party (R v Pittwood) ground criminal liability, but a moral duty to one's neighbour does not? The Miller principle (duty arising from creation of danger) has expanded liability significantly but raises definitional questions: how 'dangerous' must the situation be? The courts have not offered clear criteria.
R v Stone and Dobinson is troubling: the defendants were of low intelligence, and the 'assumption of care' was passive and ill-defined. Some argue this criminalises fecklessness rather than culpable wrongdoing. The Law Commission has periodically proposed codification to clarify duties, but no reform has been enacted. The result is a body of law that is workable in practice but lacks elegant theoretical structure.
Is this 'unjustifiable individualism'? Not necessarily. The law strikes a balance: special relationships, undertakings, and created dangers are contexts where the defendant is uniquely placed to prevent harm and fairness demands action. Extending liability further—requiring strangers to rescue strangers—would shift the criminal law from prohibiting wrongdoing to enforcing virtue, a move many regard as beyond its proper ambit. The individualism is defensible, even if reasonable minds differ.
Conclusion
The rules on causation and omissions are undoubtedly policy-sensitive. Causation blends factual but-for testing with normative judgments about substantial contribution, intervening acts, and victim characteristics. Omissions liability reflects a choice to limit duties to special contexts rather than impose blanket obligations. But 'policy-driven' does not mean 'incoherent'. The causation framework has a clear structure—factual and legal causation, with settled rules on medical treatment, victim responses, and thin skulls. The omissions law, though less systematic, embodies principled restraint grounded in liberalism and the act/omission distinction.
Neither area is immune from criticism. Causation could benefit from clearer guidance on multiple sufficient causes and the role of foreseeability. Omissions law would be improved by codification of duties and explicit criteria for the Miller principle. But the law as it stands is neither arbitrary nor indefensible. It reflects considered judgments about responsibility, autonomy, and the limits of state coercion—judgments that are contestable but coherent. The proposition in the question overstates the case: the law is policy-informed, pragmatic, and reasonably principled, even if not philosophically pure.
[Word count: ~1,650]
---
Examiner's Commentary
This is a strong first-class answer. The candidate:
- Engages directly with the proposition, structuring the essay around the twin claims (causation incoherent; omissions unjustifiably individualist).
- Demonstrates detailed doctrinal knowledge: White, Smith, Cheshire, Blaue, Pagett, Kennedy, Miller, Stone and Dobinson are all deployed accurately and efficiently.
- Synthesises academic literature: Hart and Honoré, Ashworth, Horder, Gardner, Tadros, Simester, Moore, and Williams are cited by name with accurate attribution of views. This signals serious engagement with secondary sources.
- Offers critical evaluation: the candidate does not simply describe but assesses the coherence and justifications, arguing that policy-sensitivity is defensible and that liberal restraint in omissions is principled.
- Maintains structure and clarity: each section addresses a facet of the question, and the conclusion synthesises the arguments without mere repetition.
To improve further, the candidate might:
- Explore comparative law in more depth (the question lends itself to European rescue duties as a foil).
- *Address the Evans case (post-Kennedy* omissions liability for drug supply) to show awareness of recent developments.
- Interrogate the 'incoherence' claim more forensically: is internal inconsistency the real charge, or is it normative disagreement with policy choices?
Nevertheless, this would score 70+ in an Oxford FHS examination: comprehensive, rigorous, and analytically confident.