Causation Flashcards
Coincidence of AR and MR
in some situations, it is hard to prove that both the AR and MR must present simultaneously
Thabo Meli
Thabo Meli (1954)
The D’s attacked a man and threw what they assumed was his dead body over the cliff, he was not dead but subsequently died from exposure. The defendants were convicted of murder.
The court decided that the actus reas and mens rea were combined in a series
Church (1965)
The defendant took a woman back to his van to have sex, he could not satisfy her and she laughed at him. A fight followed and the woman was knocked unconscious, thinking she was dead, Church threw her body in the river where she actually drowned and he was convicted of manslaughter.
A continuing act:
Where the actus reas is ongoing and the defendant has the necessary mens rea, then the courts have decided that the two elements do coincide and the defendant can be found guilty.
Fagan v Metropolitan police commissioner
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1986)
A policeman was directing the defendant to park his car. The defendant accidentally drove onto the policeman’s foot. The policeman shouted at him to get off. The defendant refused to move. The defendant argued at the time of the actus reus, the driving onto the foot, he lacked the mens rea of any offence since it was purely accidental. When he formed the mens rea, he lacked the actus reus as he did nothing.
Held:
The driving on to the foot and remaining there was part of a continuing act.
Factual causation:
But for test
‘‘But for the conduct of the defendant would the victim of died, as and when they did?’’
established in R v White
R v White (1910)
The defendant put some poison in his mother’s milk with the intention of killing her. The mother took a few sips and went to sleep and never woke up. Medical reports revealed that she died from a heart attack and not the poison. The defendant was not liable for her murder as his act of poisoning the milk was not the cause of death. He was liable for attempt.
This case established the ‘but for’ test. Ie would the result have occurred but for the actions of the defendant? If the answer is yes the defendant is not liable.
Attempted murder
R V Pagett (1983)
The appellant shot at a police officer who was trying to arrest him, and subsequently attempted to use a pregnant teenage girl standing nearby as a human shield to defend himself against retaliation by the officer, the officer returned fire, killing the girl.
The de minimis rule:
the test requires the original injury caused by the defendants actions to be more than a minimal cause of death, so the act must cause an injury that is the main cause of death as set out in R v Hughes
Legal causation:
more focused on the actual, physical cause of death, identified in the post-mortem.
1. The injury must be the operation and substantial cause of death
2. the ‘thin skull’ rule
3. Novus Actus Interveniens
R v Kimsey (1996)
D was involved in a high speed car chase with a friend, she lost control of her car and the other driver was killed in the crash. The evidence about what happened immediately before D lost control was not very clear, The trial judge directed the jury that D’s driving did not have to be ‘the principle or substantial cause of death, as long as you are sure it was a cause and that there must be something more than a slight, trifling link’
The court of appeal upheld Ds conviction for causing death by dangerous driving.
The thin skull rule:
You need to take your victim as you find them, if the victim dies of something unusual or unexpected you may still be responsible for their death
R v Blaue
R v Blaue (1975)
The defendant stabbed an 18 year old girl four times when she refused to have sexual intercourse with him. She was a practising Jehovah’s witness and refused to have a blood transfusion which would have saved her life. The defendant was convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and appealed arguing that the girl’s refusal to accept the blood transfusion was a novus actus interveniens breaking the chain of causation, alternatively that Holland was no longer good law.
Held:
The defendant’s conviction was upheld
you MUST take your victim as you find them.
Novus actus Interveniens
the intervening act must be unforeseeable and random - an act of god.
- a victims own act
- an act of a third party
- a natural or unpredictable event
R v Smith (1959)
The defendant, a soldier, got in a fight at an army barracks and stabbed another soldier. The injured soldier was taken to the medics but was dropped twice on route. Once there the treatment given was described as palpably wrong. They failed to diagnose that his lung had been punctured. The soldier died. The defendant was convicted of murder and appealed contending that if the victim had received the correct medical treatment he would not have died.
Held:
The stab wound was an operating cause of death and therefore the conviction was upheld.
