LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CRIMINAL LAW — Homicide — Causation — Ambiguous Medical Evidence Resolved in Favour of Accused
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where there is more than one possible cause of death, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused because the available evidence does not pin the accused down to the death of the deceased. This is because there is an intervening or supervening cause (novus actus interveniens).
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Tobi, JSC, in Aiguobaruoghian & Anor v. State (2004) NLC-2942002(SC) at p. 29; Paras C–D.
"Where there is more than one possible cause of death, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused because the available evidence in such a situation does not pin the accused down to the death of the deceased. This is because there is an intervening or supervening cause, which equivalents in Rome's Latin home, are novus actus interveniens and nova interveniens respectively."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Where medical evidence presents multiple possible causes of death, the chain of causation is broken and the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. An intervening or supervening cause (novus actus interveniens) that may have contributed to death prevents the prosecution from establishing causation with certainty. This serves protecting accused persons from conviction where causation is speculative. The court cannot convict where medical evidence leaves open reasonable doubt as to whether the accused’s act actually caused death, rather than some other intervening factor.