Causation Flashcards
What does Section 13(1) of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) state about criminal responsibility?
Section 13(1) states that “a person causes an event or result if their conduct is a substantial or operative cause of it.” It means the accused need not be the sole cause, but their conduct must contribute significantly.
Explain the ‘but for’ test in relation to Section 13(1).
The ‘but for’ test asks: “But for the accused’s conduct, would the result have occurred?” If the answer is no, the conduct is a factual cause. This is supported by R v White where the accused poisoned his mother, but she died of a heart attack—he was not the factual cause.
What is the legal effect of Section 13(2) concerning natural consequences?
Section 13(2) provides that a person is criminally liable for an event that naturally results from their conduct, even if unintended, unless a new, unforeseeable act breaks the chain of causation.
Problem Scenario: A man stabs another in a fight. The victim refuses medical treatment due to religious beliefs and dies. Apply the law.
Under Section 13(2) and case R v Blaue, the defendant is still liable. The refusal of treatment does not break the causal chain—he must take the victim see as he finds them (thin skull rule).
What does Section 13(3) of Act 29 say about acts done in a chain of events?
It states that if a person causes something to happen which, in a natural sequence, causes an event, they are criminally responsible for that event, even if it happens through another person or an involuntary agent.
Case Recall – How did the court in R v Michael apply the principle in Section 13(3)?
A mother gave poison to a child, intending it to be administered by a nurse. Instead, a five-year-old gave it to a baby, causing death. The mother was liable because she initiated the chain of events.
Problem Scenario: Ama gives a child poisoned milk, intending the maid to feed it to a rival’s baby. The maid leaves it unattended, and another child feeds the baby, who dies. Discuss liability.
Ama is liable under Section 13(3) and R v Michael. Even though the agent was an innocent child, the causation chain initiated by Ama makes her responsible.
What is the legal principle in Section 13(4) about joint causation?
If two or more people act independently but concurrently contribute to a result, each is fully liable if their act is a substantial cause. This is supported by R v Smith and R v Benge.
Case Recall – Explain the decision in R v Smith and its relevance to Section 13(4).
A soldier stabbed another, and negligent medical treatment followed. The victim died. The original stab wound was still an operating and substantial cause. So, the attacker was liable despite the medical error.
Problem Scenario: Two men assault Kofi separately, and both wounds require surgery. He dies on the table. Can both be liable?
Yes. Under Section 13(4) and cases like R v Smith and R v Benge, if both acts were substantial causes, both are criminally responsible.
What does Section 13(7) address regarding causation?
Section 13(7) explains that if someone causes another person to act under compulsion, fear, or mistake, leading to harm, the instigator is liable, not the innocent agent.
Case Application – How does Thabo Meli v R demonstrate continuing acts and intention?
The accused thought the victim was dead after assaulting him, and disposed of the body off a cliff. The victim died from exposure. The court held the whole series of acts as one transaction, establishing mens rea and actus reus continuity.
Explain how R v Yeboah fits into Ghanaian causation law.
R v Yeboah affirmed that the accused’s conduct must be a direct, substantial cause. Even if there are other contributing factors, the accused can still be liable if the chain isn’t broken.
What is the general principle under Section 64(1) of Act 29?
It states that a person causes death if they cause it directly or indirectly, by any unlawful harm. This includes causing physical, mental, or emotional harm that leads to death.
What does Section 64(2)(a) say about causing death through omission?
A person may be liable for death if they omitted a duty they were legally required to perform, and that omission caused the death.
Scenario: A parent fails to feed a child leading to death. Is this criminal under Section 64(2)(a)?
Yes. This is a breach of legal duty. The parent is liable under Section 64(2)(a).
How does Section 64(2)(d) extend liability to emotional and psychological harm?
It states that causing death includes causing mental or emotional trauma leading to physical collapse or death. This reflects a broad understanding of harm.
Case Connection – How does R v Hayward support Section 64(2)(d)?
In Hayward, the accused chased his wife, who had a medical condition and died from the shock. The court held him liable despite not physically touching her.
What is the meaning of ‘unlawful harm’ under Section 81?
Harm is unlawful if it is intentionally or negligently caused without justification or excuse under the law. It covers both direct and indirect harm.
Scenario: A man slaps another during an argument, who hits his head on a rock and dies. Is this unlawful harm?
Yes. The slap was intentional and unjustified. Even if death was not intended, the harm was unlawful and may result in manslaughter.
Case Recall – In R v Cato, what was the principle concerning contributing causes to death?
The accused injected heroin into a friend who died. Even though the friend consented, the act was unlawful. The accused was liable because his act contributed to death.
How does R v Holland show that refusal of treatment doesn’t break the causal chain?
The victim refused amputation of an infected finger and died. The court held that the original injury was still the cause of death.
Application Scenario: Kwame injures Kojo, who refuses surgery and dies. Is Kwame liable?
Yes. As in R v Holland and Section 13, refusal of treatment does not break the chain of causation.
