The Role of Judicial Precedent in Defining the Scope of Criminal Liability in Cases of Concurrent Causes

Abstract

The concurrence of causes and contributing factors in criminal law is one of the fundamental yet complex issues that has generated extensive debate both theoretically and practically. When multiple human or natural factors jointly lead to a criminal outcome, determining the primary perpetrator and the extent of each factor’s liability becomes difficult and sometimes impossible. This situation creates challenges for judges and attorneys in analyzing causality and issuing fair judgments in criminal cases. The significance of this issue in Iran’s criminal justice system is amplified by its direct relationship to the realization of justice and the prevention of impunity. The central question of the present study is which criteria should be applied to determine criminal liability when multiple causes overlap, and to what extent judicial precedent has contributed to clarifying these criteria. The main objective is to examine the jurisprudential and statutory foundations concerning the concurrence of causes, analyze the decisions of courts and the Supreme Court, and assess the role of judicial practice in creating unity and coherence in defining the scope of criminal liability. In this regard, the study seeks to identify the strengths and weaknesses of current judicial practice and propose strategies to improve its effectiveness. The research methodology is descriptive–analytical and is based on library research, the examination of authoritative jurisprudential and legal sources, and a comparative analysis of decisions issued by domestic courts. In the jurisprudential section, principles such as the precedence of the stronger cause over the direct agent and the distinction between proximate and remote causes are addressed. In the legal section, relevant provisions of the Islamic Penal Code of Iran (2013) are examined. Judicial precedent and the Supreme Court’s unifying opinions are analyzed as one of the most important supplementary sources. The findings reveal that judicial practice has, in many cases, successfully addressed statutory gaps and provided practical criteria for establishing liability. However, challenges remain, including inconsistencies in court decisions, ambiguity in apportioning responsibility among multiple factors, and potential tensions between jurisprudential principles and judicial rulings. The results emphasize that strengthening the role of judicial precedent through reinforcing unifying decisions, integrating expert opinions and related sciences, harmonizing jurisprudential foundations with statutory provisions, and revising relevant laws can promote individual and social justice and enhance coherence within the criminal justice system.