Causation

Question 1

What is the general rule of causation?

Answer 1

It is necessary to show that the conduct of A brought about the criminal result.

Question 2

What is a ‘novus actus interveniens’?

Answer 2

• An intervening act.
• May cause an outcome to be completely unexpected based on the initial act.
• Can transfer the causation.

Question 3

What are the general criteria for causation?

Answer 3

1. Would the outcome have happened if it were not for the actions of the accused? (But for test).
2. Is the connection between the action of the accused and the outcome sufficiently strong? (Proximate causation).
3. Factors that may break the chain of causation?
4. Was the outcome foreseeable? Was the intervening act foreseeable?
5. Situation where there is third party intervention?

Question 4

Proximate causation.

Answer 4

McDonald v HM Advocate 2007 SCCR 10.

Question 5

Factors that may break the chain of causation.

Answer 5

• Existing contributory causes.
• Supervening contributory causes.

Question 6

What is the importance of the existing condition of the victim?

Answer 6

THIN SKULL RULE.
- You take the victim as you find them, even if the victim is more susceptible to injury etc. you take them as you find them and so this does not reduce liability.
e.g. psychological condition.
- R v Blaue [1975] 1 WLR 1411.

Question 7

Which case do we look at when discussing whether an outcome / intervening act was foreseeable?

Answer 7

Michael Kane v HM Advocate; Kevin MacAngus v HM Advocate [2009] HCJAC 8, 2009 SLT 137.

Question 8

What is the typical example of a third-party intervening which may break the chain of causation?

Answer 8

Involving medical treatment.
- Negligent medical treatment would usually not be regarded as breaking the chain of causation.
- If the accused has inflicted a serious injury on the victim, the number of outcomes, including death, would be classed as foreseeable.