Causation Flashcards
3 elements of causation
- Defendant must be the factual causation - who started it
- Defendant’ actions must be the legal cause - amount of contribution.
3.There must be no intervening act which breaks the chain of causation.
- Factual causation
What is it?
This asks whether based on the facts, was the defendants act or omission the cause of the harm.
This uses the BUT FOR test asking if ‘but for’ the action occurring, would the harm have happened??
R v White
- Legal causation
What is it?
Was the defendants actions more than the minimal (de minimus) cause of death/injury and was it the operating/substantial cause.
There must be more than a slight or trifling link between the defendant’s actions and the harm suffered by the victim.
R v Kimsey 1996
There is no need for the actions to be the only thing that caused the injury/death - they just need to be the main cause
R v Smith 1959
- No new intervening act which may break the chain of causation
What is it??
‘Novus actus interveniens’
If the chain of causation is broken, there is no longer a link between the defendant’s actions and the injury.
What WILL break a chain of causation? (case examples )
Self injection of drugs - R v Kennedy N02 2007
Daft and unforeseeable actions of the victim - R v Williams and Davis 1992
Medical treatment that is so bad it amounts to crime itself - R v Jordan 1956
What will NOT break a chain of causation? (Case examples)
Third party actions which are done in performance of a legal duty - R V Pagett 1983
Foreseeable actions of the victim or actions done for self-preservation - R v Roberts 1971.
Extra - The thin skull rule must be applied
What is it?
Take your victim as you find them.
This means the defendant is liable for the full extent of their actions even if the victim has suffered consequences that are worse than what would normally be suffered due to some other pre-existing factors.
R v Blaue 1975
