Causation Flashcards
criminal law paper 1
For which types of crimes must causation be established? Give an example.
Causation must be established in result crimes, where the outcome is an essential element of the offence. For example, in murder, the defendant’s actions must cause the victim’s death.
What is meant by factual causation?
Factual causation is established using the “but for” test: but for the defendant’s actions, would the result have occurred?
Why was factual causation not present in R v White?
Factual causation was not present because the victim would have died of a heart attack regardless of the poison administered by the defendant.
What is meant by legal causation?
Legal causation requires that the defendant’s actions are a significant and operative cause of the result, even if other factors contributed.
What does the decision in R v Benge tell us about legal causation?
The decision shows that the defendant can still be legally liable even if others also contributed to the result, as long as the defendant’s actions were a significant cause.
What is the test for legal causation as confirmed by the Supreme Court in R v Hughes?
The test is whether the defendant’s actions were more than a minimal cause of the result and whether those actions contributed in a legally significant way.
Why was D the cause of V’s death in R v Smith?
The defendant was the cause of the victim’s death because his stabbing was still an operating and substantial cause, despite poor medical treatment.
Why did medical negligence break the chain of causation in R v Jordan?
The chain of causation was broken because the medical treatment was palpably wrong and so independent of the defendant’s actions that it became the main cause of death.
What did the court rule in R v Cheshire about medical negligence?
The court ruled that medical negligence would not break the chain of causation unless it was so independent and potent that the defendant’s actions were no longer a significant cause.
Why was D liable for V’s death in R v Blaue?
The defendant was liable because the victim’s refusal of a blood transfusion due to religious beliefs did not break the chain of causation; the defendant had to take the victim as they found them.
What is the test for whether or not the victim’s own actions break the chain of causation as per R v Williams and Davies?
The test is whether the victim’s actions were so unreasonable or unforeseeable that they became a new and independent cause of the result.
