Causation Flashcards
Is voluntary suicide a satisfactory Novus Actus Interveniens, and which cases demonstrates this?
No - R v. Dear [1996]
When will acts of God break the causal link?
When the events are not reasonably foreseeable.
In Smith [1959] was the causal link broken, and why/why not?
No - only if the second cause is so overwhelming as to make the original wound merely part of the history can it be said that the death does not flow from he wound.
What are the two leading cases for the thin skull rule?
R v. Hayward (1908) & R v Blaue [1975]
What is the thin skull rule?
You must take your victim as you find them.
The test originally used in R v Roberts (1971)?
was it ‘so daft that no reasonable person could have foreseen it?’
What was the test in R v Roberts adapted to in R v Mackie? (1973)
Were the V’s actions something that could reasonable have been foreseen as the consequence of what D was saying or doing? - Stephenson LJ
What test establishes legal causation?
Operating and Substantial cause - was the accused’s conduct the operating and substantial cause of the result?
Factual causation: The D’s act need not be the only cause but merely substantial. It must be the material and substantial cause - what case illustrates this?
R v Benge (1865)
What must actions of third parties be so as to break the casual link and what case illustrates this?
Actions of third parties must be free, deliberate and informed - R v Pagget [1983]
Define causation.
The link between the D’s actions and the criminal consequences. The causal link.
What was the ‘substantial’ element of the legal cause test defined as?
‘More than slight or trifling link”
What does the ‘De Minimis Principle’ demonstrate?
That the conduct of D need not be the only or the main cause of the end result just along as it it provides a more than minimal cause.
What is the two-part test in Fright & Flight situations?
1) Was it reasonably foreseeable that some harm was likely to result from the threat itself? 2) Was the v’s reaction within the range of response which might be expected from a V in the same situation?
What type of crimes is causation relevant?
Result crimes - causal link must be proven so to say the D caused the result proscribed by law.
What ways could a Novus Actus be present?
Medical Negligence; Intervention of third parties; Thin Skull Rule; Fright or Flight; Act of the Victim & Acts of God.
What case defined the ‘substantial’ element of the legal cause test?
R v. Kimsey [1996]
What case establishes: “The consequence must be caused by the D’s culpable act”?
R v Dalloway (1847)
What is a Novus Actus Interveniens?
Literally “New Act Intervening” - something that may break the chain of causation.
What case established the two part test for fight and flight cases?
R v. Williams [1992]
What cases are relevant to medical negligence?
R v Smith & R v Cheshire
What does R v. Holland demonstrate, and R. v Blaue support?
Where a wound is wilfully and without justifiable cause, inflicted and ultimately becomes the cause of death, the party who inflicted it is guilty of murder, though life might have been preserved if the deceased had not refused to submit to a surgical operation.
What are the two stages in proving the causal link exists?
Factual & Legal causation.
What does R v. Kennedy illustrate?
Merely providing drugs and allowing V to make an informed and voluntary decision will not hold the D liable. It is a satisfactory Novus Actus Interveniens.
How do you establish factual causation?
The ‘But for’ test - but for the D’s actions would the V have come to the same consequence at the same time and in the same way?
