actus reus- causation Flashcards
what must the prosecution prove?
that the d was
the factual cause
the legal cause
and that there was no intervening act which broke the chain of causation
how to establish factual causation
but for test
but for test
‘But for the defendants conduct would … have happened?’
if the harm would have occurred anyway then the d is not the factual cause
R v White (fc)
facts and principle
D set out to kill his mother and puts poison in her drink. She did not drink it, post mortem showed she died from a heat attack.
(but for) if it was not for d’s action, would v have still died? - yes so D not factual cause of death
Pagett (fc)
facts and principle
D had taken a 16yo girl hostage and was chased by police. D manages to get to a flat and coms out at some point using the girl as a ‘human shield’. Police didn;t have a clear view of who came out. D starts firing at police, police fire back and girl is shot and dies. D blamed police.
But for what D did would she have died? no, so d is the factual cause.
how to prove legal causation
conduct must be more than De minimis (more than a minimal cause)
d’s conduct does not have to be the sole or main cause, but must be more than a minimal cause.
kimsey (lc)
CoA held that it was also acceptable to tell the jury that the d’s conduct does not have to be the principal or substantial cause of the harm/death, as long as they are sure that there was more than a
SLIGHT OR TRIFLING LINK (small link)
what can break the chain of causation
the victims own actions
the actions of a third party
negligent medical treatment
what is an intervention known as in latin?
Novus Actus Interveniens
victims own actions example-
Roberts
facts and principle
a young woman accepted a lift from D. D drives in different direction and during the journey makes a series of sexual advances. In court, v said she believed the d was going to rape her- why she jumped out of the moving car receiving a concussion, bruises and cuts
d convicted of ABH
if v’s actions were reasonably foreseeable, the chain of causation will not be broken. If v does something daft/unexpected that will break the chain (not reasonably foreseeable)
the victims own actions example
Williams
facts and principle
D picked up a hitchhiker otw to glastonbury. During the journey, prosecution tried to argue that v thought d was going to rob him. Jumped out of the car due to this and gets a head injury and dies
driver convicted of manslaughter and appeals arguing the chain of causation had been broken.
Reasonably foreseeable?
was the d’s conduct proportionate to the threat?
no, manslaughter conviction was quashed
the victims own actions example
Wallace 2018
facts and principle
D threw acid over ex bf’s face causing serious injuries.
spent over a year in hospital before going back to Belgium and ended his life via euthanasia
victims own actions, not a new and intervening act
the victims own actions example
Kennedy 2007
facts and principle
D have V a syringe of heroin. V injected self and died.
convicted of UDAM and appealed
victims own actions broke chain of causation.
actions of a third party
and case example
if a 3rd party has contributed to the unlawful consequence, the original attacker will still be liable if the third party’s actions were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the actions of the d.
eg pagett
what is the general rule in relation to negligent medical treatment?
it will not break the chain of causation
