year and a day rule

This rule set out that if you injured someone and they died in excess of a year and a day after the injuries were inflicted you couldn't be charged with murder, and it was abolished over ten years ago.

Considering the year and a day rule came into force initially in the thirteenth century I feel it showed an impressive grasp of remoteness of causation. Similarly, I felt that Michael Howard was correct in repealing it, given the advances of modern science. I'll leave for another time the suggestion that it should be re-introduced with an amendment to the effect that if the victim survives a year and a day following the injury in an NHS establishment without experiencing complications related to the contraction of a superbug in hospital then the perpetrator can't be charged because the victim is clearly uncommonly lucky (and should buy some lotto tickets pronto).

In the first few days of law school, coming up on ten years ago, we had an exercise in legal reading involving a snippet of legislation related to this rule. We had to work out what the rule actually meant and whether it was still in force or not. I occasionally remember how I felt, sat in our lecture theatre one morning (which was itself noteworthy), eager and full of optimism and enthusiasm about being a lawyer. I sometimes wish all the legislation I had to read was that straightforward.

Recently the BBC published an article which included a list of cases where the abolition of the rule has led to people being charged and convicted of murder since the abolition of the law in 1996.

Rights of owls and pussycats remain unaffected. Relief all around!