What was the ruling regarding the negligent treatment in R v Cheshire (1991)?

In R v Cheshire (1991), the court ruled that the negligent medical treatment given to the victim did not constitute a novus actus interveniens, meaning that it did not break the chain of causation between the initial act of violence and the death of the victim. The legal principle established in this case is crucial; it clarifies that if the initial injury was a substantial factor in the outcome, then subsequent negligence in treatment that may have contributed to the death does not absolve the initial perpetrator of liability.

The facts of the case highlighted that the victim had sustained serious injuries due to a shooting and subsequently received treatment that included an inadequate medical response. The court ultimately determined that the treatment, while negligent, did not sufficiently overshadow the role of the original act (the shooting) in causing the death. This ruling emphasizes the idea that causative factors can coexist and that multiple layers of causation can exist without one negating the other. Thus, the initial act remains a legal cause of the outcome, linking it directly to the notion that the original perpetrator retains liability for the death, even in light of negligent medical care.

This reasoning is essential in understanding how the law approaches issues of causation and liability, particularly in the context