Actus Reus Flashcards
What is causation?🤔
Prosecution must prove in order to establish the Actus Reus, that D caused that consequence.
The jury must be satisfied that D’s conduct was both a factual and legal cause of the prohibited consequences.
‘But for’ test?🤔
Case of WHITE
D’s conduct must be a factual consequence of the prohibited result, it must be established that the consequence would not have happened ‘but for’ D’s conduct
Case facts of WHITE
D put cyanide in his mothers drink intending to kill her. She died of a heart attack before she could drink it.
D was acquitted of murder, he had not in fact caused her death.
Kimsey Rule?
Legal causation - “must be more than a slight or trifling link”
Cato?
‘De minimus rule’
Mere establishment of factual causation between D’s conduct and the prohibited result is insufficient it might lead to the conviction of the morally innocent.
PAGETT
Where a new event or act intervenes and breaks the legal causation D will not be liable for the consequence.
(E.g. Act of a 3rd party, V’s own act or by a natural unpredictable event)
Intervening act must be sufficiently independent of D’s conduct and sufficiently serious.
CHESHIRE facts
D had shot V. V died two months later in hospital due to his windpipe becoming obstructed where surgery had been performed.
CHESHIRE ruling
Although the wounds were healed at the time of death, the C/A upheld D’s conviction of murder. The medical complications were a direct consequence of the shooting and D’s act was still a significant cause of V’s death.
ROBERTS:
where V is trying to escape or otherwise protect themselves from threats from D = no break in the chain of causation. Unless V does something so daft or so unexpected that no reasonable man could be expected to foresee
MARJORAM
A gang of youngsters including D has been shouting abuse and kicking V’s hostel room door. V jumped from her window suffering serious injury. C/A upheld conviction of GBH.
Reasonable person could’ve foreseen V’s reaction.
HOLLAND FACTS
D cut V on the finger with an iron instrument. The wound became infected but V ignored medical advise to have amputated. The wound caused lockjaw and he died.
HOLLAND ruling
D was held to be the cause of V’s death as V’s conduct in neglecting to have his wound treated did not break the chain of causation.
JORDAN
only case where the chain of causation was broken.
JORDAN FACTS?
D stabbed V who died of 8 days later in hospital when the wound had largely healed. Given an antibiotic injection which he suffered from an allergic reaction. Treatment was stopped, but another doctor the next day ordered another large dose. V died from and allergic reaction to the second injection.
JORDAN RULING.
D’s conviction for manslaughter was squashed on appeal since the original wounds were no longer life threatening and the medical treatment was “palpably wrong”
