Causation

Question 1

Criminal liability

Answer 1

actus reus + mens rea + absence of valid defence

Question 1

Result Crime

Answer 1

criminal offence where the actus reus requires proof of a particular outcome being caused. For these offences both factual and legal causation must be proved in order to find a defendant liable

Result Crime = factual causation + legal causation

Question 2

Factual causation (result crime)

Answer 2

the jury must be satisfied that the acts or omissions of the accused were in fact the cause of the relevant consequence.

Act …
- must be causal link between consequence and act
- any action which accelerates death is a cause

Question 3

legal causation (result crime)

Answer 3

it must be established that the acts or omissions of the accused were a legal cause of that consequence.

Establish…
- D’s acts must be the substantial cause of the prohibited harm
- the consequence must be caused by D’s culpable act
- D’s act ned not be the only cause of the prohibited consequence

Question 4

novus actus interveniens

Answer 4

subsequent act or event of wither victim of third party which renders D’s part in the consequence very small breaking chain of caution and meaning D is not criminally liable

i.e. medical negligence, acts of third party/victim, thin skull rule, natural events

Question 5

Medical negligence

Answer 5

• Highly unusual for medical treatment to break chain of causation.
• To break the chain, the treatment must be ‘so potent’ that D’s contribution is insignificant.
• The treatment (or lack thereof) must be ‘so overwhelming’ that it makes the original injury ‘part of the history’-the potent and independent act must amount to treatment that can be characterised as ‘palpably wrong.’
• R v Smith- must be said that the original wounding is merely the setting in which another cause operates.
  o Only if the second cause is so overwhelming as to make the original wound merely part of the history can it be said that death does not follow from the wound.

Question 6

Acts of third parties

Answer 6

• Only breaks the chain of causation if the actions of the third party were ‘free, deliberate and informed.’

Question 7

Acts of the victim

Answer 7

• Fright/Flight
  Plausible that V may attempt to escape
  Was the escape foreseeable to reasonable person?
• Refusing medical treatment
  D must take V as they find them
• Suicide
  whether suicide has been caused by D is a q of fact that juries should apply their common sense to
  2-stage test
  1. Are you sure that D’s unlawful act was a significant and operating cause of death?
  2. If yes, are you sure that at the time of the attack it was reasonably foreseeable that the victim would die by suicide as a result of V’s injuries?

Suicide may not break chain of caution where…
- V dies from the original wound
- Act was reasonably foreseeable
- D’s unlawful act was a significant and operating cause of death and at the time of the attack it was reasonable foreseeable that V would due by suicide as a result of V’s injuries

Suicide may break the chain of causation if…
- injuries inflict day D have healed
- it was a voluntary and informed decision of V to act

Question 8

thin skull rule

Answer 8

• A person who inflicts harm on another cannot escape liability if the victim, owing to some pre-existing infirmity or peculiarity, suffers greater harm than would have been expected as a result of what the accused has done.
• D must take V as they find them.

Question 9

natural events

Answer 9

only breaks the chain of causation if they are extraordinary or not reasonably foreseeable.