Causation Flashcards
What establishes a link between the defendant’s actions and the result?
Causation
Causation is essential in establishing liability in criminal law.
What must the prosecution prove in terms of causation?
Both factual and legal causation
Factual causation relates to the actual cause of the result, while legal causation pertains to the legal responsibility for that result.
What is the But-for test in factual causation?
But for the defendant’s actions, would the consequence have occurred?
This test determines if the harm would have happened without the defendant’s conduct.
What is the key case illustrating factual causation?
R v White (1910)
In this case, the defendant was not guilty of murder because the poison he administered was not the cause of death.
What must a defendant’s act be in terms of legal causation?
A significant and operative cause of the result
Legal causation requires that the defendant’s actions are a substantial factor in bringing about the result.
What is the key case illustrating legal causation?
R v Smith (1959)
The original wound inflicted by the defendant was still considered a substantial cause of death despite subsequent medical treatment.
What can break the chain of causation?
Intervening acts
Intervening acts can include actions by third parties, the victim’s own actions, or natural but unforeseeable events.
What is an example of an intervening act by a third party?
R v Jordan (1956)
In this case, medical negligence broke the chain of causation due to an allergic reaction to the wrong antibiotic.
What is the significance of R v Cheshire (1991) in terms of medical negligence?
Medical negligence must be so independent from the defendant’s act to break the chain
This case highlights the standard for determining whether medical treatment interferes with causation.
What can break causation in terms of the victim’s own act?
If the victim’s response is unreasonable
This principle was illustrated in R v Williams (1992), where an unreasonable response could break the chain of causation.
What was the outcome of R v Roberts (1971) regarding the victim’s actions?
No break in causation
The victim’s act of jumping from a car was deemed foreseeable in response to the defendant’s actions.
What are natural but unforeseeable events in terms of causation?
Rare events that can break causation if completely unexpected
Such events are not common but can influence legal determinations of causation.
What is the Thin Skull Rule?
Defendant must take the victim as they find them
This rule means that a defendant is liable for the full extent of a victim’s injuries, even if the victim has pre-existing vulnerabilities.
What case exemplifies the Thin Skull Rule?
R v Blaue (1975)
The refusal of a blood transfusion due to religious beliefs did not absolve the defendant from liability.
