AR: causation (problem Q)

Question 1

What is AR

Answer 1

the physical element. What conduct, in what circumstances, with what outcome

Question 2

What are result crimes

Answer 2

Where D’s conduct has caused the outcome

Question 3

What are conduct crimes

Answer 3

Crimes which are concerned with the nature of the conduct rather than the result e.g. dangerous driving

Question 4

What are state of affairs crimes

Answer 4

They require proof only of the state of affairs

Question 5

In crimes requiring proof of an outcome what must be shown

Answer 5

causation

Question 6

In all cases when should D not be judged to have acted; or brought about a state of affairs

Answer 6

if it was not within D’s conscious control e.g. Hill v Baxter, Pearson J swarm of bees in the car example

Question 7

In terms of causation what must be shown

Answer 7

that D’s contribution links both factually and legally to the outcome (Hughes)

Question 8

What is the chain of caution - R v Smith

Answer 8

there must be a sufficient and operative cause

Question 9

Can causation include omissions?

Answer 9

Yes, where there is a result capable of being produced through an omission; D is under a duty to act and he breaches that duty

Question 10

What is factual causation

Answer 10

D must be the but for cause of the result

Question 11

What happened in R v White

Answer 11

D poisoned his mother in the hope to kill her. however, it was revealed she actually died from an unrelated condition. Therefore, but for D poisoning her, she would have died anyway. Thus, D was not the factual cause so could not be convicted or murder, however he was found guilty of attempted murder

Question 12

What happened in R v Dalloway

Answer 12

D was negligently driving his horse and cart without holding the reins, when a child ran into the road which eh hit and the child was killed.
Was D the but for cause of the death? Using the but for test- factual causation could be established- however the but for test in this situation is problematic, even if he had not been driving negligently there would have been nothing he could have done in order to not have hit the child. Therefore, the but for test established a factual link but does not mean that D is necessarily to blame or responsible. therefore, a more stringent test is needed.

Question 13

What is legal causation

Answer 13

D must be a legally significant cause

Question 14

What did Hughes say about legal causation

Answer 14

D must be the more than de minimise cause, in the form of some sort of wrongdoing

Question 15

What did R v Hennigan say about legal causation

Answer 15

It need not be the only or principle cause. It must however, be a cause which is more than de minimise, more than minimal.

Question 16

What did R v Kimsey say about legal causation

Answer 16

conduct must be more than minimal or a trifling cause, therefore must be substantial.

Question 17

What happened in R v Hughes

Answer 17

charged driving without licence/ insurance. D’s driving at the time of the accident was faultless, the wording of the offence implied to import common law rule of causation which required some element of fault- in that D contributed more than minimally to the death, however it is more than a state of affairs- however does this subvert the intention of Parl to create a SL driving offence?

Question 18

In which case was Hughes approved

Answer 18

Taylore- aggravated vehicle taking, the relevant aggravation owing to the driving of the stolen car. It was accepted D’s driving was without fault. Therefore it was held it would be a remarkable extension of SL to make D liable for a result that he could not prevent. Such an extension would require clear language from the Theft Act that was not present.

Question 19

What did Benge hold

Answer 19

D cannot escape liability by identifying someone else to blame

Question 20

Can an indirect cause satisfy causation?

Answer 20

yes where it is legally sufficient and operative- McKechnie

Question 21

What is an omission

Answer 21

A failure to act where D has a duty to prevent the result

Question 22

Why are common law duties problematic?

Answer 22

They are threaten the Art 7 principle of certainty and fair warning- it would be preferable to define them

Question 23

examples of statutory cuties

Answer 23

S.19 terrorism Act a failure to disclose information about known terrorist activities
Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act S.5 by allowing/causing the death of a child or vulnerable adult which includes a failure to prevent such harm

Question 24

what is a special relationship

Answer 24

e..g parental duty- Gibbins v Proctor

A duty between husband and wife- R v Smith

Question 25

What is a contactual duty of care

Answer 25

R v Pittwood: a duty is owed to all those who may be affected through omission not just the people with who the contract is between

Question 26

Where is there a r/ship/ undertaking

Answer 26

in cases where there is a voluntary assumption of care whatever the formal relationship between D and V, in circumstances where V becomes dependent upon that care,

Question 27

There are two ways the assumed duty of care can be performed

Answer 27

express- Nicholls (D, V’s grandmother, agreed to take care of V, after her mother died)
Instan- (D, V’s niece moved into Vs house. V became unwell. Although D continued to live in the house and eat V’s food, she did not care of summon help.

Question 28

What happened in R v Gibbins and Proctor

Answer 28

G was the father of several children including, N, his 7 year old daughter. His wife had left him and he was living with his new partner. His new partner did not like N and had hit her. They kept the child separate from the other children and deliberately starved her to death. They were found guilty of murder, through their omission coupled with their special relationship and assumed duty of care towards N.

Question 29

What happened in Stone v Dobinson

Answer 29

• V, the sister of an elderly man come to stay with him and his lover. V was fearful of putting on weight and refused to eat, became bed bound and developed serious bed sores which became infected. The couple made half-hearted attempts to get held but failed to do so.
  They were charged with GNM. They had assumed a duty of care for V, they knew that she was relying on them and failed to get the assistance she needed. The duty was found through the fact D1 was V’s brother and allowed her to live with him. And D2 had assumed a duty of care towards V by sometimes bathing and feeding her although she was not a blood relative. Both had assumed a duty by taking, limited, ineffective steps to help.

Question 30

Why can the judgement in Stone v Dobinson be said to be problematic

Answer 30

The judgement can be said to have created some uncertainty- does it mean that we are all under a duty of care for anyone living in our house? What about short-term visitors?
D seemed to have been punished for ineffectual steps to help- would she have been better doing nothing?

Question 31

What did R v Miller say about creating a dangerous situation

Answer 31

There is a duty to take e measures that lie within one’s powers to counteract the danger that one self has created- reasonable will depend on the circumstances- there is not need to act as a hero

Question 32

What happened in Evans (creating a dangerous situation)

Answer 32

, D bought V heroin and have it to V who injected herself. Later it was obvious that V had overdosed but neither D’s contacted the emergency serviced as they were fearful that they would get into trouble.

Question 33

What was decided in Evans

Answer 33

They had a duty in manslaughter by gross negligence ‘when a person has created or contributed to the creation of a state of affairs which he knows, or ought reasonably to know, has become life-threating’. Also, controversial, HL decided a charge of unlawful act MS, could not succeed if it was based on the supply of a drug on V that V voluntarily took. Evans accepts this, but gets around by constructing a duty of care based on the contribution but allows D to be convicted of GNMS for breach of her duty to her sister.

Question 34

According to Smith when can a duty of care be terminated

Answer 34

If she was capable of rational decisions, it might be reasonable to respect her wishes. If the wife was irrational, her wishes should be ignored. This is a difficult question to leave to the jury.

Question 35

In Airedale NHS Trust v Bland, when could the duty of care be terminated?

Answer 35

The HL allowed the doctors to stop treatment of V if it was in his best interest where: the parties have obtained a full declaration from the court a full investigation has been undertaken; and the patient is in a persistent vegetative state.

Question 36

in which case did a duty arise out of the medical treatment?

Answer 36

there is a duty of care between doctors and their patients. An anesthetise failed to notice that V’s oxygen had become unconnected.

Question 37

What is a supervening cause

Answer 37

One which is capable of breaking the chain of causation

Question 38

What happened/was decided in R v Smith

Answer 38

stabbed and dropped. The doctors failed to realise the seriousness of the injured. It was held the doctors would not break the chain of causation where the injuries inflicted by D where still operating and substantial cause of death

Question 39

What was decided in R v Cheshire

Answer 39

Shot wound was no longer life-threatening. However, the treatment would only break the chain of causation where it was so independent and so potent in causing death that D’s actions become insignificant

Question 40

What happened in R v Jordan

Answer 40

Although it has never been overruled, Smith and Cheshire have narrowed it considerably on its facts. V was given a medicine he was know to be allergic to. Therefore, the negligent treatment must be palpably wrong to secure a conviction

Question 41

where will refusal of medical treatment not break the chain of causation

Answer 41

If there is something about V’s physical state that makes injury more serious, D will be liable for the more serious injury

Question 42

What happened in Blaue

Answer 42

V refused a blood transfusion on the basis of her religion and died. It was held must take the victim as find him0 egg shell rule, in that D will be liable for the more serious consequence of his actions.

Question 43

What happened in Holland

Answer 43

doctor advised for the amuptation of a finger to which V refused. The question was not whether if V had accepted the best treatment, but whether the death was caused by the wound the consequences of it.

Question 44

What happened in Roberts

Answer 44

When V was injured while escaping was the action so daft that no reasonable person would have considered it?

Question 45

What was decided in Williams

Answer 45

jumped out of car to avoid sexual assault. It was within the reasonable range of responses that might be expected- It was held that the jury must consider the characteristics of v, and consider that in the agony of the moment that V may act without deliberation

Question 46

Case for voluntary act

Answer 46

Kennedy (No 2): in the case of the fully informed responsible adult, the chain of causation will be broken where V self administers a drug. V’s action was voluntary and out of free will. D is not to be treated as causing V to act a certain way if the act was voluntary and informed. So despite the fact it was foreseeable she would take the drugs, the supply was not the legal case of death.

Question 47

What was decided in Dhalwalia

Answer 47

Considered if suicide could be said to be a voluntary act. the CoA considered the situation where D inflicts injury upon V, and then V commits suicide as a result. It was considered that it may be possible if D’s injures trigger a recognised psychiatric illness- however, it was not tested due to lack of evidence- potential argument for lack of choice.

Question 48

What is the acceleration principle

Answer 48

Where D substantially accelerates when V will die. Adams: doctor gave an overdoes of painkilling drugs. It was held that it did not matter if V’s days were limited, If cut short by weeks or months still as much of a murder

Question 49

What is the self preservation principle

Answer 49

Where X is acting to protect himself or another from D’s actions, can it be said the response of X is voluntary or caused by D? Considered in Pagget (human body shield): A reasonable act performed for the purpose of self-preservation, being of course itself an act caused by the accused own act, then it does not operate as an NAI.

Question 50

Cases for life support

Answer 50

R v Malcherek: where V is brain dead there is no break in the chain of causation
R v McKechnie, case where the V could not receive treatment for a pre-existing condition because of the injuries inflicted by the D. The decision not to operate had been reasonable and not so independent of the act of the accused that it could be regarded as causing the V’s death.