Causation

Question 1

State a brief introduction into causation

Answer 1

For consequence crimes it must be shown that the D “caused” the outcome. Causation refers to the relationship between the Ds conduct and the result. The prosecution must show an unbroken and direct chain of causation between the Ds actions or omissions and the consequence.

Question 2

What are the two tests to show whether a D can be blamed for the outcome?

Answer 2

-Factual Causation- “but for” test
-Legal Causation- “deminimis” rule

Question 3

What is the Latin for an “intervening act”?

Answer 3

“Norus actus interveniens”

Question 4

For both factual and legal causation what must there not be?

Answer 4

-An intervening act
“Norus actus interveniens”

Question 5

What is the Latin for the idea of the “but for” test?
But for the Ds actions, the consequence would not have occurred

Answer 5

“Sine qua non”
“without which it could not be”

Question 6

What happened in the case of Pagett?

Answer 6

(Factual Causation)
D took his 16 year old girl pregnant girlfriend hostage in his flat. He used the girl as a human shield and fired at the police. The police returned fire and the girl was killed. D was convicted as the V would have not died “but for” him using her as a shield.

Question 8

What happened in the case of White?

Answer 8

D put cyanide into his mother’s lemonade, but she coincidentally died of heart failure before she had not consumed enough poison to kill her. D was not the “but for” cause, she would have died anyway.

Question 9

What happened in Hughes?

Answer 9

V was under the influence of drugs crashed into Ds vehicle. Ds driving had not been at fault, the V was entirely responsible for their own death. However the D was uninsured at the time and on a provisional licence. It was clear that “but for” D diriving the V would not have crashed into him. However, the CA quashed the conviction , this was an absurdity as the D was just driving on the road at the wrong time.

Question 10

What is legal causation?

Answer 10

“De Minimis” rule (more than minimal)
Sometimes the Ds conduct will be the only contributing factor and thus they are clearly more than the minimal cause. However sometimes something else may happen. The de minims rule assess how much D contributed to the results and whether it was enough to still I deserve the blame.

Question 11

When considering legal causation what is the jury directed to ignore?

Answer 11

A jury will be directed to “ignore trivialities” as there needs to be “more than a slight or trifling link” between Ds contribution and outcome. However, Ds conduct does not need not be a substantial or main cause of the result.

Question 12

What happened in Kimsey?

Answer 12

D and V were both driving very fast in their separate cars.
It is not entirely clear what happened jsut before the crash which killed V, but it was accepted that both cars were driving at high speeds. D was found guilty as Ds act need not be the sole cause or even the main cause of victims death. It is enough that Ds act contributed significantly to the result.

Question 13

Why is the “De minims” rule vague?

Answer 13

-injects some flexibility
-Allows juries to come to a decision based on the merits of each individual case

Question 14

What is the thin skull rule?

Answer 14

D must take their victim as s/he finds them

Question 15

What happened in the case of Blaue?

Answer 15

D stabbed V several times, penetrating her lungs. She required a blood transfusion to safe her. She was a Jehovah witness so refused. Medial evidence showed that she was unlikely to die if she had received treatment. The prosecution accepted that Vs refusal was a cause d her death but D was still found guilty because her had to take his victim as he found her.
(Thin skull rule includes beliefs)

Question 16

What is an intervening act ?

Answer 16

Sometimes something else may occur after Ds act/ omission and if this is sufficiently separate from Ds conduct it may break the chain of causation. However, if the other act is a foreseeable consequence of Ds conduct the D will still be the cause

Question 17

How can the chain of causation be broken?

Answer 17

-Act of a third party
-Victims own actions
-Natural and unforeseeable events

Question 18

How can actions of a third party break the chain of causation?

Answer 18

-Typically involves the medical profession
v will often require some medical treatment, however, even treatment that is not performed very well is unlikely to break the chain unless it so independent from Ds act and in itself so potent in causing death
-As D is the reason needing the treatment in the first place this often continues to connect D to the situation

Question 19

What happened in Smith?

Answer 19

Two soldiers had a fight. V was stabbed in the lung through his back. V was carried to the medical centre but dropped twice and at the medical centre the doctors did not realise the urgency of his injuries. V received inappropriate medical treatment which made the injury worse and he died 2 hours after the stabbing. The poor treatment probably affected his chance of recovery by as much as 75%. However D still regarded as the cause of Vs original injury as it was already life threatening and thus D was guilty of murder.

Question 20

What happened in Cheshire?

Answer 20

D shot V in the thigh and the stomach and the V needed major surgery. V then developed respiratory problems when under hospital care, 2 months later it got worse and V died. By the time V died the original wound had virtually healed and were no longer life threatening. However D was still convicted as Ds act did not have to be the sole cause or even the main cause jsut more than minimal to the death.

Question 21

What happened in Jordon?

Answer 21

D stabbed V. When V was being treated in hospital V was given antibiotics which they had an allergic reaction to. Doctors stopped the use of the drug but the following day another doctor ordered a large dose of that antibiotic and the V died.
CA found the actions of the second doctor to be sufficiently serious intervening act which caused Vs death.

Question 22

What is the relation between causation and life support machines?

Answer 22

When doctors switch off life support machines of a patient that is brain dead it does not break the chain of causation, it is generally accepted that V has already legally died at this point.

Question 23

What happened in Malcherek and Steel?

Answer 23

D (Malcherek) stabbed his wife which caused serve brain damage so doctors carried out tests tests and found her brain dead and switched off the life support.
D (Steel) attacked V with a rock and caused serve brain damage so the life support was switched off.
Ds appealed together however CA rejected the argument that switching off life support broke the chain of causation

Question 24

How can a Victims own actions cause a break in the chain of causation?

Answer 24

If the Victim simply does a voluntary action even if it is heavily helped by the D, the Victim is deemed responsible.

Question 25

What happened in Kennedy?

Answer 25

At Vs request, D prepared a syringe of heroin. V self-injection and then died. D was not guilty of manslaughter because V had voluntarily injected.

Question 26

What will happen if a D causes a V to react in an objectively foreseeable way?

Answer 26

Any injuries that V subsequently suffers will be considered to have been caused by the D, even though it was technically “self-inflicted”

Question 27

What happened in Roberts?

Answer 27

A girl tried to jump from a car to escape from Ds sexual advances. Although, the Victim caused her own injuries by choosing to jump. However, the girl would not have jumped “but for” Ds conduct.

Question 28

What must the jury consider about a Victims reaction?

Answer 28

The jury must consider if the victims reaction was “within the range of expected responses”

Question 29

What happened in Williams and Davis?

Answer 29

D’s picked up a hitchhiker. V jumped from D’s car and died from head injuries. The prosecution argued that D’s were trying to steal V wallet however the evidence for this was not sufficient. Therefore, D’s were not responsible as the jury were directed to look at the V’s conduct alone which was deemed “unreasonable”.

Question 30

What surrounding circumstances must be considered when deciding if the V’s conduct ahs broken the chain?

Answer 30

-Where the threats to V are more serious, it is more reasonable for the V to take drastic actions

Question 31

What is “Victim Neglect”?

Answer 31

It has been argued that when a V neglects treatment or increases their injuries they are the new cause of death. HOWEVER this has been rejected by the courts as they prefer to focus on D being the cause of the initial injury.

Question 32

What happened in Holland?

Answer 32

D cut V on their finger with a piece of metal. The wound became infected, but V ignored medical advice that he should have the finger amputated or risk death. V later died. The judge directed the jury that it made no difference whether the wound was instantly mortal or became so due to V not seeking medical help. The death was still the D’s fault.

Question 33

What happened in Dear?

Answer 33

D’s daughter accused V of sexually abusing her. D found V and repeatedly slashed him with a stanley knife. V received medical treatment but alter re-opened his wounds and died two days after the initial attack. D argued that V re-opening the wounds was a “novus actus interveniens”, however D was convicted as the original wound was the operating cause of death.

Question 34

How can unforeseeable events break the chain of causation?

Answer 34

A natural event may be enough to break the chain of causation of it is sufficiently unforeseeable

Question 35

What happened in Hart?

Answer 35

D assaulted V and left him unconscious on the beach, The tide came in and V drowned. The tide coming in was a reasonably foreseeable event so the chain of causation did not break