Criminal law Novus Actus Interveniens
... Topic for discussion: “The law of causation concerning new intervening acts reveal only one rule: those who do bad things with even worse consequences must expect to pay for them.” Introduction The Latin phrase novus actus interveniens literally interpreted means a ‘new intervening act’. In context with criminal law and more particularly, with the principle of causation therein, the concept of a novus actus interveniens has been an elusive abstraction as it were. To paraphrase Alan Norrie’s observations1 on this issue, it has often been seen that the concept (by that, one refers to the parameters of a novus actus interveniens discussed supra) has been modified to suit social perception and therefore has a socio-political label stuck upon it. The Theory For a proper appreciation of the issue at hand a brief discussion of the theory of a novus actus interveniens would be in order. Principally, a novus actus interveniens breaks the chain of causation; that is to say that the first or former (as the case may be) actor of criminal responsibility is relieved of his criminal liability. ... The intervening act may or may not be performed by humans (examples of non-human interventions would be vis major - act of God or an abnormal and uncharacteristic animal behaviour – a normal or foreseeable animal behaviour causing harm might be the basis for vicarious liability which is covered by the civil law of obligations) although the majority of cases in this section of the law would relate to human intervention. Professors Hart and Honoré6 suggest that to negate criminal responsibility, there must be either a “…. ... Human action can be classified for the purpose of reasoning into narrower compartments, acts of a third party – where a doctor, police officer or absolutely anybody else plays a role in the chain of causation, acts of the victim himself and strict liability cases (actually this is an exception to the principle in so much as there is no real justification or excuse in law, not even a novus actus interveniens, for a strict liability offence) Precedents, Arguments and Criticisms A narrative on the relevant precedents would form the groundwork for analysing their relevance to the issue at hand and the criticisms thereafter. To follow a logical pattern whilst narrating the cases, they have been grouped in the following manner: Acts of a third party Medical practitioners Other public officials Others Acts of the victim Attempted escape Other victim action, inaction or conditions Medical Practitioners In several of the leading cases, the allegations of a novus actus interveniens have been directed towards voluntary acts by doctors. The case of Jordan7, widely regarded as the foremost of the controversial cases in this area of criminal law, was one where a US Army soldier, stabbed the deceased who died some days later in hospital. ... ” It is quite self-evident therefore that a defence of a novus actus interveniens by medical practitioners is almost always unsuccessful. ... It has been suggested in some quarters however, that circumstances extraneous to the case itself such as the presence of the US Army and other political and influential issues might have played a more mitigating role than the law, facts and the ‘palpably wrong’ treatment did.