Causation Flashcards
1
Q
What is causation?
A
‘causation is the link between the defendants original act and the final consequence
2
Q
What are the 3 stages causation requires to prove?
A
- Factual causation
- Legal causation
- Chain of causation
3
Q
Explain factual causation
A
- first the prosecution must prove factual causation, did the defendants actions cause the harm as a matter of fact
- ‘but for’ the defendants criminal action or omission would the victim have suffered harm? if the answer is no, the defendant is criminally liable. if something else is the cause of the damage, D is not liable (R V White.)
4
Q
R V White
A
- D put poison into the evening drink of the victim his mother with the intention of killing her. V drank a few sips of the drink and then fell asleep. She did not wake up, medical evidence was that she had died of a heart attack rather than poison. D gave evidence that he had not intended to kill her by a single dose but multiple.
- Court established ‘but for’ test for causation and test not met therefore D could not be convicted of murder. Court held it was sufficient that the attempted murder had been began. Conviction for attempted murder upheld.
5
Q
R V Pagett
A
- appellant shot a police offer who was trying to arrest him and used a pregnant teen girl standing near by as a human shield to defend himself against retaliation by the officer. Officer returned fire, killing the girl.
- D had done 2 dangerous acts which a sober, reasonable person would realise they were likely to cause harm, firstly by firing at the officer and secondly by forcing the victim to shield him. Both of these acts caused V’s death. Convicted of manslaughter.
6
Q
What is legal causation?
A
- Test for legal causation begins whether D’s conduct made a ‘significant contribution’ to the result (de minimis rule r v kimsey)
- it need not be the only cause
7
Q
R V Kimsey
A
- D +V (girlfriend) involved in a high speed car chase when the girlfriend lost control of her car and was killed. - - The judge said as long as the defendant driving was believed to be more than a ‘slight or trifling’ contribution to the cause of her death then it was sufficient to form legal causation
8
Q
R V Cato
A
- Mr Cato and V prepared their own syringes and then injected each other with heroin. V died.
- Mr Cato convicted of manslaughter and admiring a noxious thing contrary to S.23 of the offences against the person act 1861. Since the act of admiration was deliberate and direct there is no need to find ‘maliciousness.’
9
Q
What is a chain of causation?
A
- chain of causation may be affected by a ‘novus actus interveniens.’
10
Q
What are the chains in causation?
A
- Actions of the victim
-Actions of medical 3rd party
-actions of negligent 3rd party
-thin skull rule
-brain stem death
11
Q
Explain actions of the victim using R v Roberts
A
- after a party the male defendant R, gave the female victim a lift home in his automobile. The victim and defendant had not met before. D began making sexual advances towards the victim which she rejected before attempting to pull her coat. V then opened the door and jumped out of the moving vehicle sustaining injuries as a result.
- If the victims act was so unexpected that it could not be foreseen by a reasonable man then the act would be remote and unreal consequence of the assault and such would then break the chain of causation.
12
Q
Explain actions of medical 3rd party using R v Smith
A
- D was a soldier who stabbed one of his comrades during a fight in an army barrack. V was taken to receive medical attention but whilst being carried to the hospital he was dropped twice by those carrying him. Once at the hosptial he recieved negligent medical treatment. The medics failed to diagnose puncture to his lung. V died of his injuries.
- Court held that the stab wound was an operating cause of the victims death and it did not matter
