Causation Flashcards
Requirements of causation
1) Factual question - would it have happened if not for D’s actions
2) Evaluative question - Is there sufficient connection between the conduct and the result to amount to causation?
3) Is there a direct intervening cause (novus actus interveniens)
Causation (2)
If no subsequent intervention then D’s act counts even if the end result is very unlucky/unlikely
R v Mallett
Neighbourhood dispute, one falls back hits head and dies, very unfortunate but the assault was clearly the cause of death
Causation (2)
Subsequent acts or omissions by others should not matter if D’s act remained an operative cause of the final result
R v Cheshire
Cheshire shot a man, man taken to hospital, only way he could breathe was w/ a tracheotomy, feeding tube became infected, killing him. Treatments aimed at curing patient will never break chain of causation unless it is so potent and independent
R v Blaue
Man stabbed woman, woman taken to hospital, could probably save her life if used a blood transfusion, she was a jehovah’s witness so refused and died. Blaue still responsible bc the girl still died as a result of his stabbing, her decision to refuse treatment did not interfere with that causal link
Causation (2)
Subsequent acts or omissions by others should not render D’s act too remote if they were logical or reasonably foreseeable consequences of D’s own act
Creep case
R v Roberts
Creep who picked up female hitchhikers. Started feeling her up, she told him to stop, he didnt, she jumped out of the moving car. Court decided that actions by the victim in reaction to the defendant’s action are still caused by the defendant in the chain of causation, so long as the victims action falls w/in the range of reasonable action.
Causation (2)
Subsequent acts or omissions by others should not render D’s act too remote if they were logical or reasonably foreseeable consequences of D’s own act
Taxi case case
R v Lewis (in retrospect)
Argument outside taxi rank w/ drunk students and angry cab driver. Did the cab driver as well as shouting at and threatening the student also chase him down, bc the student ran away into oncoming traffic. If he had, conviction would be safe, if unsure that Lewis had chased the student and he might have just threatened him then watched as the student ran into traffic, then he would not be responsible for the cause of death as the victim’s actions would not be reasonable and would only be guilty of assault
Causation (2)
Subsequent acts or omissions by others should not render D’s act too remote if they were logical or reasonably foreseeable consequences of D’s own act
Ulcer case
R v McNechnie
McN and friends break into old man’s house and beat him horribly. Would likely have been discharged from hospital if not for his duodenum ulcer that can explode and kill at any time. Victim does not recover in time for surgery on ulcer, explodes and kills him
Court decides McNechnie was responsible bc the doctors otherwise could have treated the ulcer if not for his beating
Causation (2)
Subsequent acts or omissions by others should not render D’s act too remote if they were logical or reasonably foreseeable consequences of D’s own act
Police shooting case
R v Pagett
Pagett held his girlfriend at gunpoint outside her mother’s door. The police came close to Pagett. Pagett shot at the police, police returned fire, hitting the girlfriend. Pagett convicted for manslaughter, police provided fatal shot but were prompted by Pagett shooting at them. Foreseeable consequence of Pagett’s actions. Police covered by self-defence
Causation (2)
If no blame can be attached to D’s act (in crimes of strict liability) then there is no causal link
R v Hughes
Hughes charged w/ causing death by driving w/out a license. Other car driving towards him, driven by a druggie swerving all over the shop, crashed into Hughes. SC decided that for him to have caused death by driving, he must by some means be at fault in his driving, therefore conviction quashed
Causation (3)
If the intervenor was acting freely and in full recognition of what he was doing then it breaks the causation even if it was reasonably foreseeable
Drug case
R v Kennedy
Leading novus actus case, poisoning offence
2 drug addicts, one gives the other a syringe. He takes it and died of an overdose. The heroin was self-administered and was his friend’s own decision, knowing the risks. Therefore Kennedy has no causal responsibility due to the friend’s novus actus.
Novus actus only applies when deliberate, so could not have applied in Hughes
Causation (3)
If the intervenor was acting freely and in full recognition of what he was doing then it breaks the causation even if it was reasonably foreseeable
Suicide case
R v D
D beat up his wife on several occasions. One day wife commits suicide. Said it was conceivable that her decision to kill herself did not break the chain of causation. One explanation that novus actus must be both deliberate and a free decision.
