causation

Question 1

what is causation

Answer 1

proving that not only did the Defendant do something or fail to do something, but that this act or omission is what caused the victim’s injury/death

Question 2

what are the 3 factors in causation

Answer 2

defendant actions must be the factual cause
defendant must be the legal cause
there must be no intervening act that breaks the chain of causation

Question 3

questions asked in the factual test

Answer 3

Based on the facts, did D’s act or omission cause the harm? Would it have happened if D hadn’t acted?
‘But for’ D’s acts or omissions, would V have still suffered the harm?
Yes=not guilty
No=guilty

Question 4

what case links to this

Answer 4

r v white
He was found NOT GUILTY of her murder.

‘But for’ his actions, she would have still died anyway, so he was not the factual cause of her death.

However – he was guilty of attempted murder

Question 5

what question is asked for the legal cause

Answer 5

Was D’s act (or omission) more
than the minimal cause (de minimus)?

Question 6

what case links to this

Answer 6

r v kimsey
He was found GUILTY of causing her death.

The judge directed the jury to find him guilty if they believed his actions were more than the ‘de minimus’ (more than minimal) cause of her death.

There was no need for it to be a ‘substantial’ cause – just more than ‘slight or trifling’

Question 7

new intervening acts

Answer 7

These are referred to as Novus Actus Interveniens. If the chain of causation is broken by a NAI, there is no longer a link between the D’s actions and the injury

Question 8

what will break the chain of causation (3)

Answer 8

Third party actions which are “free, deliberate and informed” e.g self-injection of drugs
Daft and unforeseeable actions of the victim
Medical treatment that is so bad it amounts to a crime in itself

Question 9

what will not break the chain of causation (5)

Answer 9

Third party actions which are done in performance of a legal duty
Foreseeable actions of the victim or actions done for self-preservation
Usual medical treatment, even if mistakes are made
Includes switching off life support machine
Victim’s self-neglect or suicide as a direct result of D’s actions
Thin skull rule

Question 10

'’Third party actions which are “free, deliberate and informed”, including self injection of drugs’’ case example

Answer 10

R v Kennedy (No.2) (2007): The victim decided to inject the syringe of their own free will (even if D had helped to prepare it)

Question 11

'’Daft and unforeseeable actions of the victim’’ case example

Answer 11

R v Wiliams and Davis (1992): It could not be foreseen that the passenger would jump out of the car here as it was a ‘daft’ reaction, so their actions broke the chain

Question 12

'’Medical treatment that is “so independent of the D’s act and so potent” it is a crime in itself’’ case example

Answer 12

R v Jordan (1956): The victim’s wound had healed when the medical treatment was given, so the treatment caused the death

Question 13

'’Third party actions which are done in performance of a legal duty’’ case example

Answer 13

R v Pagett (1983): Police officer was doing their legal duty, so did not break chain

Question 14

'’Foreseeable actions of the victim
Or something done for self-preservation’’

Answer 14

R v Lewis (1970): Victim jumped out of the window for self-preservation (protecting themselves from harm or death) reasons, to escape attack from D. This did not break the chain

Question 15

'’Usual medical treatment, even if mistakes are made.
Includes switching off life support machine’’ case example

Answer 15

R v Malcherek (1981): A doctor switching off a life support machine will not break the chain

Question 16

'’Victim’s self-neglect or suicide’’ case example

Answer 16

R v Wallace (2018): The victims decision to be euthanised (put down) was directly linked to the D’s actions, so it did not break the chain

Question 17

thin skull rule

Answer 17

'’take your victim as you find them’’
This means a Defendant is liable for the full extent of their actions even if the victim has suffered consequences that are worse than what would be normally suffered due to some other pre-existing factors (e.g. an abnormally thin skull)