Causation Flashcards
Causation
Refers to a set of rules which helps determine whether a defendant’s actions are responsible for the prohibited consequence
The defendant’s conduct must be:
- The factual cause of the consequence
- The legal cause of the consequence
- And there must be no intervening act which breaks the chain of causation
Factual causation
If they don’t satisfy factual causation, they will not be found liable
‘But for’ test
- But for the defendant’s actions/omissions, the victim would not have suffered the consequence/the consequence would not have occurr
Legal causation
Examines culpability and blameworthiness of the D which involves a series of factors
De minimis principle – more than minimal contribution
- The defendant’s act or omission must be an operative and substantial cause of the consequence (with no intervening acts to break the chain of events) but it need not be the sole or main cause of death
- R v Kimsey – ‘more than a slight or trifling link’ between conduct and consequence
Supreme Court ruling in R v Hughes
It must have ‘more than minimally, negligibly or trivially contributed to the death’ – Lord Woolf
Thin skull rule - under legal causation
Separates from the rule on acts of the victim
The defendant must take his victim as he finds him
- If V has any mental/physical condition that may worsen the injury caused by D, D will still be found liable even if death/injury isn’t reasonably foreseeable – even extends to religious beliefs that could i.e., prevent V from getting correct treatment for injuries
Intervening acts/ novus actus interveniens- under legal causation
For the D to be liable, there must be no intervening act (novus actus interveniens) which could break the chain of causation and prevent the D from being liable
There are three types of intervening act: the acts of the victim, the acts of a third person, unforseeable natural events (acts of God)
The acts of the victim
- The victim’s own acts have the potential to break the chain of causation and be regarded as the legal cause of the consequence, unless they are reasonably foreseeable by the defendant
- The ‘self-neglect rule’ – where the victim refuses or delays seeking medical treatment, however courts have ruled that such actions don’t break the chain of causation
The acts of a third person
A third persons must overtake the actions of the defendant and become the operating cause of the consequence
e.g., A poisons B, but the poison doesn’t take effect before C arrives and shoots B. A will not be the cause of B’s death, and C’s actions will amount to an intervening act
Medical interventions
- Does not break the chain unless ‘extraordinary and unusual’ or ‘palpably wrong’ (treatment so independent from defendant’s actions that it became a greater effect on the consequence than the D’s actions)
Unforseeable natural events (acts of God)
To amount to an act of God, there must be a natural event that is so unpredictable and unforeseeable that it prevents the defendant from being regarded as the legal cause
Ordinary weather and natural events e.g., rain aren’t sufficient, but events such as landslides, lightning and earthquakes are
Issues with causation
The ‘more than a slight or trifling link’ referred to in R v Kimsey is very vague
If the victim refuses medical treatment that would save them (e.g., in R v Blaue), should the defendant be liable?
The thin skull rule means that the defendant is convicted of murder when there was no intention to kill
Consequences
A crime can be an ‘action’ (such as speeding), or it can be a ‘consequence’ (such as murder where the consequence is a ‘dead human being’)
- Most offences against the person are ‘consequences’
Where the consequence is not directly caused by the defendant’s actions (there is another factor involved) the rules of causation apply
R v White
Factual - but for test
It was sufficient that the attempted murder had begun, however V died from unrelated condition, so D could not be convicted of murder.
R v Pagett
Factual and Legal
Factual - The consequence of the V’s death would not have occurred but for the D’s actions, and so he was the factual cause.
Legal - The court stated that ‘the accused’s act need not be the sole cause, or even the main cause… it being enough that this act contributed significantly to the result’
R v Dalloway
Factual - but for
The D was not guilty as the V’s death was unavoidable and would have occurred without the D’s actions.
R v Kimsey
Legal - de minimus principle
‘More than a slight or trifling link’ between conduct and consequence
R v HM Coroner for Inner London, ex parte Douglas-Williams
Legal - de minimus
Lord Woolf – defendant’s act must have ‘more than minimally, negligibly, or trivially contributed to the death’
R v Benge
Legal
The D’s negligent act was the substantial cause of death, even when others contributed to it
R v Kennedy
Novus actus interveniens - acts of victim
D wasn’t liable as V freely and voluntarily administered the drug without any pressure from D
R v Roberts
Novus actus interveniens - acts of victim
The act was foreseeable and was not something ‘daft or unexpected’ that would sufficiently break the chain of causation
R v Williams and Davis
Novus actus interveniens - acts of victim
Was the V’s reaction in ‘the range of responses which might be expected’ from a reasonable person in those circumstances
R v Majoram
Novus actus interveniens - acts of victim
A reasonable person could foresee such act (victim jumping out of window) so the D was liable
R v Holland
Novus actus interveniens - acts of victim: self-neglect rule (and but for)
D’s action was still the legal cause of V’s death even if V refused medical treatment (didn’t break the chain)
R v Dear
Novus actus interveniens - acts of victim: self-neglect rule (and but for)
Depending on the situation, suicide (occurred due to aggravating wounds inflicted by the D) doesn’t have to break the chain of causation
R v Cheshire
Novus actus interveniens - acts of third person
D was liable as only in the most extraordinary and unusual case that medical treatment would be seen ‘so independent of his acts that they regard the contribution made by his acts as insignificant’
R v Jordan
Novus actus interveniens - acts of third person
D wasn’t liable as the original wound had healed, and further medical treatment was deemed palpably wrong
R v Smith
Novus actus interveniens - acts of third person
D’s actions had more than minimal contribution as V’s wound was the operating and substantial cause, therefore the chain of causation wasn’t broken
R v Hart
Novus actus interveniens - acts of God/ unforseebale natural events
Wasn’t an intervening act as death was foreseeable.
R v Blaue
Thin skull rule
D stabbed V, V needed blood but refused as a Jehovah’s Witness and died.
The CoA: ‘those who use violence on others must take their victims as they found them’.
R v Hayward
Thin skull rule
D attacked V, causing V serious head injuries. When treating V doctors discovered that V was suffering from a duodenal ulcer that to remove, would require an anaesthetic that could, with his head injuries, kill him.
R v McKechnie
Thin skull rule
Very rare for medical treatment to break the chain of causation
Causation plan
Issue - Causation is… (define)
Factual cause
- ‘But for’ test - R v White, R v Paggett, R v Dalloway
- Apply
Legal cause
- De minimus principle - R v Kimsey, Lord Woolf in HM Coroner for Inner London ex parte Douglas-Williams, R v Benge
- Apply
- Thin skull rule - R v Blaue, R v Hayward, R v McKechnie
- Novus actus interveniens:
- Acts of victim - R v Kennedy, R v Roberts, R v Williams and Davis, R v Majoram
- Self-neglect rule - R v Holland, R v Dear
- Acts of third person
- Medical intervention - R v Cheshire, R v Jordan, R v Smith
- Acts of God/ unforeseeable natural event - R v Hart
Issues with causation
- R v Kimsey ruling is vague
- R v Blaue - If V refuses medical treatment that would save them should D still be liable
- Thin skull rule means D is convicted of murder when there’s no intention to kill
Consequences
- A crime can be an ‘action’ (eg speeding) or a consequence (eg murder - ‘dead human being’)
- Where the consequence isn’t directly caused by D’s actions (another factor involved), rules of causation apply
Conclusion - If D satisfies all elements of factual and legal causation, proving to be the sole and main cause of the prohibited consequence, they are liable for causing the act
