Causation Flashcards
What are materially defined crimes?
These are crimes in which the consequence is punished
(Causation only applies to materially defined crimes)
what are formally defined crimes?
These are crimes in which only the act is punished and not the consequence
what two factors must be present to establish causation?
Factual+ Legal Causation
what is factual causation?
-To determine whether an act is a factual cause of a situation all relevant facts must be investigated:
-Conditio sine qua non= what would’ve happened if X’s conduct had not taken place? would the result still have ensued?
.>if the answer is NO then then the conduct is a factual cause of the result
>if the answer is YES then the conduct was not a factual cause of the result
How did the** S v Van As** case deal with factual causation?
- Policeman = looking for suspect in a patrol van, when young kids, all scantily dressed, disappeared into the night
- Next morning, after search, 2 were found dead from exposure to cold weather
- Van As = charged with culpable homicide
- Court held: * Trial court concluded that A = guilty, however Appellate Division gave benefit of doubt for following reasons:
▪ Even if A had conducted proper search, no guarantee they would’ve been
found = hypothetical
thinking in - thus not factually cause of death
How is the conditio sine quo non applied in instances of ommissions?
- In applying Conditio sine qua non test to omission, one must establish whether prohibited result would still have ensued if in place of X’s omission there had been positive act on their part, ito
legal duty to act positively - Instead of thinking away positive act, imagine inserting positive act into place of
omission
what is legal causation?
- Before a court can find that there is a causal link between an act and its consequences, it must be clear that act isnt merely a factual but also a legal cause of conseq
▪ Always tested against policy considerations, unless there = Novus actus
Interveniens, which has effect of excluding causation
Theories under legal causation
what is the individualising theory?
-Court looks for one specific condition which may be taken as a proximate cause of a result
R v Mubila case- accused was convicted because he was the prrimary cause of the death
Theories underlying legal causation
what is the adequate causation theory?
Conduct is the cause of a result if that conduct has in the normal course of events the tendency to cause such a result
> R v Loubster- Victim cleaned his wound with a dirty rag causing scepticemia. Accused alleged that the victim’s own conduct caused his death
>Court held- disagreed with the accused and held that an act is the cause of a result if that conduct has the in the normal course of events the tendency to cause such result
Theories underlying legal causation
what is the foreseability theory?
Conduct is the legal cause of a result if the result was reasonably foreseeable for an ordinary human with normal experience and intellect
>R v John - A+V were fighting and A chased V with a weapon while running V slipped and hit her head.
>V died due to head injury
Court held there was element of foreseeability in crime of culpable homicide
Theories underlying Legal Causation
what is a novus actus intervenis?
A new intervening event which breaks the causal chain between an act and the consequence
How did the Grotjohn case deal with a novus actus?
Paraplegic wife wanted to commit suicide and her husband purchased +gave her a loaded firearm and she shot herself. Accused’s defence was that the wife shooting herself was a NAI absolving him of criminal liabilty’
* Court held:
o A = acquitted of murder as the act of suicide broke the chain of causation that started when the loaded gun was given to the deceased.
How did the Ramousunya case deal with the novus actus?
- A and wife lived with mother in law. Fight broke out. A stabbed wife and set house on fire
- Mother in law = treated for wounds and discharged, however she died a few days after she as
discharged from septicemia of the lungs - A alleged that premature discharge of mother in law from hospital = Novus actus Interveniens of her death
- Court held:
o It couldn’t be found that medical negligence of prematurely discharging V from hospital
wasn’t a NAI
o Thus, court gave A benefit of the doubt and convicted him of attempted murder rather
than murder
How did the Williams case deal with the novus actus?
Accused shot victim and shot resulted in her being brain dead. Victim was placed on life support machines
Accused’s defense was that the decision to take off the victim from life support was the NAI
Court held- Victim already brain dead because of the shot and the causal connection between the shot and her death were proved
what did the Daniel’s case state regarding the legal cause of death?
o 3 passengers driving in a taxi. 2 brothers = A 1 and A 2
o After forcing taxi driver down a deserted road, A 1 shot taxi driver twice in the back with a firearm
o A1 then threw gun on floor where he was lying
o A 2 picked up the gun and caused immediate death of td
o A2 left the scene
o Taxi driver’s cause of death = damage ito wound to ear after A2 shot him in the ear
Court held- An act can be a legal cause of a result due to policy considerations eventhough such act was not the immediate cause of death
