... the statement in question. Examining R v Chesire [1991] 3 All ER 670 is particularly helpful. In this case, the defendant (C) shot the victim (J); J was placed in intensive care, in which he died after his windpipe narrowed where doctors had performed a tracheotomy. Beldam J established that Chesire act was still the 'substantial cause' of J's death, thereby applying the principle as understood in criminal law. It was found that the doctor's act was not a sufficient 'novus actus interveniens', as the complication with the tracheotomy was 'a direct consequence of the appellant's acts, which remained the significant cause of the death'. It was established that this principle only occurs if A does an act after which B does an act, then if B's act is; - a) a free, voluntary, and informed act. And b) renders A's act no longer a substantial and operating cause. It ...

See this essay or coursework document in full right now