R v Malcherek [1981] 2 All ER 422

Facts

  • R v Malcherek was heard alongside R v Steel, both involving similar circumstances.
  • In Malcherek, the accused stabbed his wife, causing severe brain damage; she was placed on life support, which was later withdrawn after the doctors determined she was brain dead.
  • In Steel, the accused attacked a woman, inflicting serious head injuries; she was also placed on life support, which was discontinued after brain death was confirmed.
  • In both cases, the defendants were convicted of murder.
  • The defendants appealed, claiming that the doctors’ actions in withdrawing life support constituted a new intervening act breaking the chain of causation.

Issues

  1. Whether the withdrawal of life support by medical professionals, following a finding of brain death, broke the chain of causation between the accused's act and the victim’s death.
  2. Whether the original violent acts or the subsequent medical actions constituted the legal cause of death.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals and upheld the murder convictions.
  • The court determined that the original injuries inflicted by the accused were the effective and main cause of death.
  • It was held that the medical teams acted properly and their actions did not interrupt the causal chain.
  • Stopping life support after brain death did not amount to a new cause of death.
  • The court accepted brain death, defined as the cessation of all brain function including the brain stem, as the legal definition of death.

Legal Principles

  • The chain of causation in homicide is not broken by the withdrawal of life support where brain death has been properly diagnosed.
  • The "effective and main cause" test requires that the accused’s original act remains a substantial cause of death.
  • Proper and competent medical treatment, including withdrawal of life support after brain death, does not override the accused’s causal responsibility.
  • Only grossly negligent, independent medical treatment may potentially break the chain of causation.
  • The case reaffirmed principles from earlier decisions such as R v Smith [1959] 2 QB 35, and influenced the development of the law in later cases including R v Cheshire [1991] 3 All ER 670 and Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789.

Conclusion

R v Malcherek established that lawful withdrawal of life support following a declaration of brain death does not constitute a new intervening cause and does not absolve the accused of responsibility; the accused’s original act remains the effective and main cause of death, thereby sustaining liability for homicide.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal