Causation Flashcards
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
Applies to: murder, s20 and s18 GBH, ABH, manslaughter
Issue - Causation refers to set of rules which helps to determine whether D’s actions are responsible for the prohibited consequence
- D’s conduct must be: factual cause, legal cause, and no intervening act which breaks the chain of causation
Factual cause
- ‘But for’ test - R v White, R v Paggett, R v Dalloway
- But for the D’s act/omission, the V wouldn’t have suffered the consequence/consequence wouldn’t have occurred
Apply…
Legal cause
- Examines culpability and blameworthiness of D
- De minimus principle (more than minimal contribution) - R v Kimsey, Lord Woolf in HM Coroner for Inner London ex parte Douglas-Williams, R v Benge
- D’s act/omission must be an operative and substantial cause of the consequence (with no intervening acts), but need not be the sole or main cause of death
- Lord Woolf - ‘more than minimally, negligibly or trivially contributed to the death’
Apply….
- Thin skull rule - R v Blaue, R v Hayward, R v McKechnie
- D must take his victim as he finds him, even if death/serious injury isn’t reasonably foreseeable - Novus actus interveniens:
- Acts of victim - R v Kennedy, R v Roberts, R v Williams and Davis, R v Majoram
- V’s own acts can break the chain and be the legal cause, unless they’re reasonably foreseeable by D
- ‘Self-neglect rule’ - R v Holland, R v Dear
- Where the V refuses or delays seeking medical treatment, however courts have rules this doesn’t break the chain
- Acts of third person
- Third person must overtake the actions of D and become the operating cause of consequence
- Medical intervention - R v Cheshire, R v Jordan, R v Smith
- Doesn’t break chain unless ‘extraordinary and unusual’ or ‘palpably wrong’ - treatment so independent from D’s actions that it becomes a greater effect on the consequence
- Acts of God/ unforeseeable natural event - R v Hart
Apply…..
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
