Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 183

Summary: - The causal relationship is a material relationship. Its assessment. A matter of fact. Its condition. - The accused’s liability in the offence of intentional homicide for all consequences likely to result from the injury, even indirectly, so long as it is not established that they were deliberate in order to aggravate liability. An example concerning the victim’s refusal of food or treatment. Rule: Whereas it is clear from the recorded reasons of the judgment under appeal that it ascertained the causal relationship between the victim’s injuries, which it cited from the forensic medical report, and her death, on the basis of that report, in stating: "It is established that the causal relationship in criminal matters is a material relationship that begins with the act committed by the perpetrator and is linked, in its mental aspect, to the ordinary consequences of his act that he ought to anticipate if he commits it intentionally. This relationship is a matter of fact which the trial judge alone assesses. The accused intentionally inflicted on the victim the injuries described in the forensic medical report, including the injury described to the head, causing cerebral haemorrhage and cerebral oedema that led to failure of the vital centres of the brain, in addition to the remaining injuries to her body, which indicate that she was continually tortured before her death. The first injury referred to above was the basis of death, while the victim was weak and unable to endure because of the severe malnutrition from which she suffered, as her weight at death was twenty-five kilograms. Accordingly, the accused, having deliberately left the victim without treatment despite her inability to move, particularly after inflicting her head injury and death, and then placing her, following her death, inside bags and burying her in a desert area, is therefore responsible for all consequences likely to result from the injuries he inflicted on the victim, even indirectly. From this the court infers, without arbitrary inference, conclusive evidence in which it is confident of the accused’s intent to take the victim’s life and dispose of her." Whereas it is established that the causal relationship in criminal matters is a material relationship that begins with the act committed by the perpetrator and is linked, in its mental aspect, to the ordinary consequences of his act that he ought to anticipate if he commits it intentionally, and this relationship is a matter of fact which the trial judge alone assesses. Once the judge determines it affirmatively or negatively, the Court of Cassation has no power of review, so long as the ruling in that regard is founded on reasons leading to the conclusion reached. What the appellant stated concerning the victim’s refusal to eat or her refusal of treatment—while she was under his care—does not sever the causal link, because the accused in the offence of intentional homicide is responsible for all consequences likely to result from the injury, even indirectly, so long as it is not established that they were deliberate in order to aggravate his liability. Accordingly, the challenge to the judgment in this respect is unfounded.