In R v. Jordan, why was X found not liable for Y's death?

In R v. Jordan, the rationale for finding X not liable for Y's death centers on the principle of causation within criminal law—specifically, the concept that a defendant's actions must be a substantial cause of the victim's harm. In this case, it was established that the medical treatment Y received after the stabbing was significantly negligent. This negligent medical care created a new intervening cause that effectively broke the chain of causation linking X's actions to Y's eventual death. Thus, even though X may have initially committed an unlawful act by stabbing Y, the subsequent medical mishandling was deemed so serious that it overshadowed X's actions as the cause of death.

While other options present valid points for consideration, they do not address the core issue of causation in the same way. The fact that the stabbing was not fatal in itself does not negate X's responsibility for initiating the sequence of events, while an allergic reaction or prior health conditions would also need to be shown to have directly influenced the outcome without the intervening negligent care. The key takeaway here is that for liability to stand in a homicide case, the defendant's actions must remain the proximate cause of the death, which was disrupted in this instance by the medical treatment provided