McDonald v HM Advocate

McDonald v HM Advocate
Court	High Court of Justiciary
Full case name	Felix Charles McDonald v Her Majesty's Advocate
Decided	6 December 2006
Citation	2006 HCJAC 89, 2007 S.C.C.R. 10
Court membership
Judges sitting	Lord Hodge, Lord Johnston, Lord Eassie, Lord MacLean

McDonald v HM Advocate 2006 HCJAC 89 is a Scots criminal law appeal case. It has set precedent on the matter of legal causation, using the "but for" test.

Facts

The appellant and another man assualted a man in his third-floor flat. After assaulting the man, the attackers left the flat and locked him in, taking the key. Half an hour later, the victim attempted to climb out of the window. The lintel of the second-floor window broke when he stepped on it, and he fell to his death. There was no evidence that the victim attempted to exit through the door or knew he was locked in, and he had taken a substantial amount of amphetamine. The appellant and his accomplice were charged with art and part culpable homicide.

Judgement

High Court of Justiciary

Lord Eassie

The counsel for the appellant had argued that the evidence and argument were largely equivalent to Broadley V HM Advocate. This case was ruled on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to hold the appellant responsible for the death of the alleged victim by her falling from the window. The court found that the facts in the case were materially different, with a much larger time gap between the acts committed and the death, and no evidence of the accused having ever been in the room.The appeal was denied as the case was sufficiently different from case law such as Broadley V HM Advocate, and there was sufficient evidence to infer that he jumped out the window to escape, meeting the "but for" test.

A three stage test was introduced to prove causality. Firstly, if but for the actions the victim would have died. Secondly, if the cause was direct or inderect. Thirdly, that if the victim acts in an unforceable or unreasonable way this would break the chain of causation. It was stated that what was crucial was the forceability of the victim's actions, and as such these actions do not neccesarily break the chain of causation.

It was ruled that it was not required to show that the victim had attempted escape.