R v Evans and Gardiner (No 2) [1976] VR 523
Chain of Causation and Delayed Death from Criminal Injuries
Court
Supreme Court of Victoria Full Court
Judges
Young CJ, Gillard and Anderson JJ
Citation
[1976] VR 523
Date
15 December 1975, 26 February 1976
Material Facts
In April 1974, Wayne Hamilton (also known as Jahn) was stabbed in the stomach by fellow prisoners Evans and Gardiner in the table tennis room at Pentridge Prison. The knife wound penetrated approximately six inches deep, piercing his bowel.
Hamilton received immediate medical treatment at Royal Melbourne Hospital, where surgeons performed a successful bowel resection operation. He recovered well and was discharged within days. For the next 11 months, Hamilton lived a normal prison life - he was transferred to Beechworth Training Prison, performed regular duties including physical labour like digging, and even participated in Christmas running sports.
In March 1975, just days before the legal deadline of "a year and a day" from the stabbing, Hamilton developed severe abdominal pain and vomiting. Despite being seen by multiple doctors over several days, his condition was misdiagnosed as gastroenteritis. He died on 23 March 1975.
An autopsy revealed the cause of death: a stricture (narrowing) of the bowel at the exact site of the resection surgery, caused by fibrous tissue growth. This was a known, though uncommon, complication of bowel surgery. Medical evidence suggested that proper diagnosis and treatment could have saved his life.
Issues
1. Primary Issue
Did the stabbing cause Hamilton's death, given that:
- 11 months had passed
- The original wound had "healed"
- Death resulted from surgical complications, not the wound itself
- Medical negligence may have contributed to the death
2. Legal Question
When do intervening events (like medical treatment or negligence) break the "chain of causation" between a criminal act and death?
Key Reasoning
The Chain of Causation Principle
The Full Court emphasised that causation in criminal law is ultimately a question of fact for the jury, not a legal technicality for judges to decide. The key test, drawn from R v Smith [1959], is:
"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."
The Court explained that only if a second cause is "so overwhelming as to make the original wound merely part of the history" can it be said that death doesn't flow from the wound.
Why the Long Time Gap Didn't Matter
The Court rejected the argument that because Hamilton had apparently "recovered" and lived normally for 11 months, the stabbing was too remote to have caused death. They reasoned:
1. The superficial wound may have healed, but its effects on the bowel continued
2. The stricture that killed Hamilton formed at the precise location of the stab wound
3. The surgical complication was a direct consequence of treating the stab wound
4. The time elapsed (within a year and a day) didn't change the legal principles
Medical Negligence Doesn't Break the Chain
The Court held that even if the Beechworth doctors were negligent in failing to diagnose the bowel obstruction, this didn't absolve the attackers. The reasoning was clear:
- The doctors' failures were omissions (not doing something) rather than positive acts
- The medical negligence didn't cause the death - the bowel obstruction did
- The obstruction itself was caused by the stabbing and necessary surgery
As the Court noted: "The failure of the medical practitioners to diagnose correctly the victim's condition, however inept or unskilful, was not the cause of death."
Decision/Holding
The Full Court dismissed the applications for leave to appeal, upholding the manslaughter convictions. They held:
1. The trial judge correctly directed the jury on causation principles
2. There was ample evidence for the jury to find the stabbing caused the death
3. Neither the passage of time nor potential medical negligence broke the chain of causation
4. The question of causation was properly left to the jury to decide
Key Quotes
"The question whether the alleged act caused the death is not a question for the Judge at a criminal trial. It is a question of fact for the jury."
On the fundamental principle
"Only if the second cause is so overwhelming as to make the original wound merely part of the history can it be said that the death does not flow from the wound."
On when causation is broken
"Like the learned trial Judge, we have found no reported case in which there had been a comparable lapse of time between the felonious act and the death. But whatever the lapse of time, within the arbitrary limit of a year and a day, the principles remain the same."
On the unusual timeline
"The real question is whether in the end the wound inflicted by the prisoner was the cause of death."
The ultimate question
Significance
This case stands as a powerful reminder that criminal responsibility doesn't end when a victim leaves hospital. It established that:
1. Extended causation
Causation can extend through long periods if the connection remains unbroken
2. Medical complications remain responsibility
Medical complications from treating criminal injuries remain the attacker's responsibility
3. Medical negligence rarely breaks causation
Poor medical treatment rarely breaks the chain of causation
4. Jury determination
Juries, not judges, decide factual questions about what caused a death
The case shows how the law balances competing considerations - holding criminals accountable for the full consequences of their actions, while recognising that multiple factors often contribute to tragic outcomes. Even though Hamilton seemed to recover and lived normally for months, the law traced his death back to that moment of violence.