causation

Question 1

what is factual causation

Answer 1

• but for the action commited the outcome would have NOT naturally occured
  e.g if you didnt knock over the candle there wouldnt have been a fire

Question 2

what is legal causation

Answer 2

• reviewed, and people decide whether the law is involved in the action

-e.g say theres no law against starting a fire, then defendant would be set free on any legal responsibility

if there was a law then they would be held responsible

Question 3

what does a case have to be for it to be considered a crime

Answer 3

• for D to have committed a crime , they must have been the factual cause of the crime )
• they also must be the legal cause of the crime

Question 4

what are the considerations for legal causation

Answer 4

substantive and operating cause

Question 5

what is causation

Answer 5

the last legal step that is taken to establish D ‘s legal responisbility for the result/action committed

Question 6

what are the two types of causation

Answer 6

factual and legal causation

Question 7

what is the case for factual causation case 1

Answer 7

R v Pagett 1983
D can be held criminally liable if they’re the main cause of harm
even if the other parties actions also contributed to the harm

Question 8

what is the case for factual causation case 2

Answer 8

R v White 1910
- states that factual causation must be established in order to prove criminal liability

• but for test is used,
• but for the D actions, the consequences would not have occurred
• if consequence was gonna happen away e.g victim died of something unrelated ( in this case a heart attack) D can’t be held accountable

Question 9

what is the case for legal causation

Answer 9

r v blaue 1975

• D is fully liable for the victims injury/ death even if v has pre existing condition/personal beliefs that exacerbates the harm

Question 10

what is chain of causation

Answer 10

must be direct link between the D conduct and the consequence

Question 11

what is the novus actus interveniens

Answer 11

• a new intervening act
• when something else happens after the act, which seperates the D act and the serious cause , breaks chain of causation

Question 12

what are the 3 ways in which the chain of causation may break

Answer 12

• 3rd party
• V own act
• natural but unpredictable act

Question 13

actions of a 3rd party

Answer 13

• general rule -
• medical treatment is unlikely to break chain of causation

Question 14

cases for 3rd party causation

Answer 14

R v Smith

• D liable for death if their actions are the operating and substainal cause of death , even if there were subsequent medical errors
• medical negligence will not break chain of causation unless it is sooo bad

Question 15

what about switching off life support machine

Answer 15

• doesnt break chain of causation

Question 16

when was switching off the life support machine made not breaking the chain. of causation

Answer 16

• in the case airdale nhs trust v Bland 1993

Question 17

victims own act

/

self defence, defencing themselves case

Answer 17

• if the D causes the V to react in a foreseeable way, then any injury to the victim will have been caused by the D
• e.g R v Roberts
• D is liable for injuries caused to a victim if those injuries area reasonably foresee the consequence of the D unlawful actions

however if V reaction is unreasonable, may break chain of causation

E.g

R v William
- person is entitled to use reasonable force in defence of themselves or others
- even if their belief in the need for such force Is mistaken