Actus Reus Causation Flashcards
What does causation refer to in legal terms?
The relationship between the defendant’s conduct and the consequence.
What must the prosecution show to prove causation?
- The defendant’s conduct was the factual cause of the consequence
- The defendant’s conduct was the legal cause of the consequence
- There was no intervening act that broke the chain of causation.
What is the factual cause in legal terms?
The consequence would not have happened ‘but for’ the defendant’s conduct.
In the case of Pagett (1983), what was the defendant guilty of?
Manslaughter, because the girl would not have died ‘but for’ him using her as a shield.
In White (1910), why was the defendant not guilty of murder?
The mother died of a heart attack, not the poison, so he was not the factual cause of her death.
What does the legal cause imply in causation?
The defendant can be found guilty even if his conduct was not the only cause of the consequence.
What is the de minimis principle?
The defendant can be guilty even though his conduct was not the only cause of death.
What did the court determine in Kimsey (1996) regarding causation?
The defendant’s driving did not have to be the principal cause of death, just more than a slight link.
What is the thin skull rule?
The defendant must ‘take the victim as he finds him’.
In Blaue (1975), why was the defendant still guilty of murder?
The defendant had to take the victim as he found her, despite her refusal for a blood transfusion.
What can break the chain of causation?
- An act of a third party
- The victim’s own act
- A natural but unpredictable event.
In Smith (1959), why was the defendant found guilty?
The stab wound was still ‘operating’ and was a substantial cause of the victim’s death.
What was the ruling in Cheshire (1959) regarding causation?
The defendant’s actions need not be the sole cause of death, only a significant contributor.
In Jordan (1956), what broke the chain of causation?
The administering of a large dose of antibiotic despite the victim’s known allergy.
In Malcherek (1981), what was concluded about switching off a life support machine?
It does not break the chain of causation if the victim is declared brain dead.
What is the principle regarding the victim’s own act?
If the defendant causes a foreseeable reaction in the victim, the defendant is liable.
In Roberts (1972), what was the outcome for the defendant?
Guilty, as the victim’s actions in jumping from the car were foreseeable.
In Marjoram (2000), why was the defendant convicted for GBH?
The victim’s reaction was foreseeable as an escape from imminent violence.
What was the conclusion in Kennedy (2007) regarding causation?
The victim’s self-administration of the drug broke the chain of causation.
What can happen if the victim’s reaction is unreasonable?
It may break the chain of causation.
In Williams (1992), why was the defendant not found liable?
The victim’s action was not foreseeable and disproportionate to the threat.
