Causation Flashcards
What do you need for causation?
What is causation relevant to?
- need to link the conduct (action) to the consequence (result)
- relevant to the actus reus
What is the outline rule?
- both factual and legal causation apply
- factual is applied first like a qualification test
What are the steps for causation? (6)
- Is there factual causation?
- If yes, is there legal causation?
- To check this: is it a significant cause? And
- Is it a salient cause?
- To check salient: is it too remote? And
- is there an intervening cause?
- What is factual causation known as?
- how do we state the test?
- ‘but for’ causation
- but for D’s conduct, would teh same consequence have occurred at exactly the same time in exactly the same way?
What must D’s conduct be for causation to apply?
D’s conduct must be a ‘sine qua non’ -> an essential condition
What are the 2 key cases for causation?
- R v Dalloway [1847]
- R v Broughton [2020]
What are the 2 sub-tests for legal causation?
- a significant (or substantial) cause
- a salient (or operating) cause
What does substantial mean?
- a question of judgement → courts say ‘not insubstantial’
- need to rely on intuition → a common sense approach to the threshold of significance -> no legal test for this
- multiple causes are possible → you can convict multiple people for causing one outcome → as long as each of them has contributed ‘not insignificantly’
What does operating mean?
D’s actions shouldn’t fade into the background
What are the two key ideas for operating?
- not too remote
- no intervening cause / break in the chain of causation → a novus actus interveniens
What are the 8 situations for the second key idea → the novus actus interveniens?
- unforeseeable natural events
- do NOT break chain of causation
- D may be liable for some injury, but not for death of V
- reasonably foreseeable natural event
- Chain of causation is NOT broken
- (independent) interventions by V
- usually breaks chain of causation
- (non-independent) interventions by V
- chain of causation NOT broken
- Interventions by (non-medical) third parties
- as long as the intervention is free, deliberate and informed, chain is broken
- Medical interventions
- won’t ordinarily break the chain of causation UNLESS negligence is really bad
- there is special leeway for doctors, since there are going to be cases where they do everything right but they still cannot save their patient
- Omissions
- does NOT break chain of causation
- Abnormal susceptibilities
- does NOT break the chain of causation → you have to take the victim as you find them
What is the case for reasonably foreseeable natural events?
Harlot’s case [1560]
What are the 4 cases for independent interventions by V?
- R v Kennedy [2007]
- R v BW [2018]
- R v Field [2021]
- R v Rebelo [2021] →also arguably falls under abnormal susceptibilities
What are the 2 cases for non-independent interventions by V?
- R v Roberts (1972)
- R v Dhaliwal [2006]
What are 2 cases for interventions by non-medical 3rd parties?
- R v Pagett (1983)
- R v A (2020)
What are the 3 cases for medical interventions?
- R v Jordan (1956)
- R v Cheshire [1991]
- R v BW [2018]
What is the case for omissions?
R v Blaue [1975] → arguably also falls under abnormal susceptibilities
What is the case for abnormal susceptibilities?
R v Hayward (1908)
Why is the case for R v Hughes important?
- even though it seems to be a causation case, the condition of the offence is not met
- controversial statute on driving offences
