causation Flashcards
conduct crimes
the prohibited behaviour itself forms the actus reus of the offence e.g. abduction or perjury.
also includes attempts
state of affair crimes
the actus reus is formed soley from the existence of the state of affairs e.g. winzar v chief constable of kent
result crimes
the actus reus must result in a certain outcome e.g. v must die for there to be the actus reus of murder
requires causation to be established
chain of causation
factual and legal causation must be present
factual causation
if the outcome would have happened regardless of d’s conduct, d is not the cause, if you took d’s conduct out of the picture, would the prohibited outcome still have occurred. ‘but for’ test
r v white
d put cyanide in lemonade, mum died of heart attack later on, so there was no factual causation.
legal causation
d’s conduct needs to be ‘more than minimal cause’ of the consequence.
intervening act
act which breaks the chain of causation
r v smith
d stabbed soldier, he was dropped twice otw and received negligent medical treatment.
the stab was the main cause
r v pagett
used girl as human shield
the chain of causation was not broken
a human intervention that is foreseeable, instinctively done and for self preservation will not break the chain
medical negligence
will not break the chain of causation, unless it can be described as extraordinary and unusual
r v cheshire
d shot v doctors put tube in throat to help breathe, but was done negligently and became infected
medical negligence will not break the chain unless it is so independent of d’s acts, and in itself so potent, that the jury regard the contribution made by d as insignificant
r v jordan
d stabbed v and wounds had mostly healed, even though v showed intolerance earlier, was given a 2nd large dose of antibiotics and died
held: as treatment here was palpably wrong, and the wounds were mostly healed, stab wound cannot be more than minimal cause → chain of causation is broken
r v blaue
got stabbed but refused blood transfusion , so died
lord justice lawton→ take victim as you find them, not just the physical man, but the whole man → thin skull rule
r v williams and davies
held: v’s own actions do not break chain of causation id they were ‘within a reasonable responses which might be expected from a victim in that situation’
