Causation Flashcards
Where it is difficult to establish whether D caused the cons. Which 2 tests are used?
1) . Factual Test
2) . Legal Test
What is causation?
Causation is part of the AR of some offences (result crimes). It is up to the Jury to decide if the casual link between D’s acts and the prohibited consequence has been established.
How is factual causation applied? And what must be established?
Commonly applied using the ‘But For’ test; it must be established that the cons. Would not have occurred as and when it did but for the D’s conduct.
What if the offence would have happened regardless of the D’s conduct?
There would be no liability.
Which case illustrates Factual Causation?
R v White (1910)
What is legal causation?
This is about identifying responsibility in law. The question is whether the result can fairly be said to be the fault of D.
Which series of factors must be established?
a. The de minimus principle
b. Intervening acts
c. The thin skull rule (egg shell rule)
What is the de minimus principle?
The D need not be the main or sole cause of death or injury, but they must be more than a minimal cause.
Which case illustrates the de minimus principle?
R v Paggett (1983) - ‘reasonably foreseeable’ that the police would return fire.
What is an intervening act?
Each step in the sequence of events must inevitably lead to the next in order to establish a chain of CA. It’s possible for an IA to break the chain, thus preventing D from being liable.
Which 3 acts can break the chain of CA?
a. Acts of a third party
b. V’s own acts
c. Act of God
Explain the meaning of acts of a third party.
This is where a third person does something that contributes to the end result.
When will the acts of a third person break the chain of CA?
When the actions are so potent and powerful that lead to death.
Separate and independent features of death.
When won’t there be a break in the chain of CA?
When the original wound is still an operating and substantial cause.
Which 3 cases illustrate this? And what was the decision?
R v Cheshire (1991) - Treatment given was not independent of D’s original actions, this negligence did not excuse D’s liability.
R v Smith (1959) - Original wound was still operating and substantial at the time of death.
R v Jordan (1956) - medical treatment was separate and independent features, which were so potent and powerful.
