Causation Flashcards
Who decides causation?
The jury
To be responsible the D’s conduct must be..
More than a minimal cause
What is the de minimus principle?
A very minimal acceleration in death may be ignored e.g pricking the finger of someone bleeding to death
What is cause in fact?
Cause sine qua non- the D does not cause a consequence if it would have happened anyway without their conduct
Cause in fact AKA the ‘but for’ test. What does this mean?
But for the conduct of the accused it would not have happened
Case of Padgett- but for
But for the D pulling the GF in front of him, as police shot at him, she would not have died
Case of White- but for
D poisoned mothers yes but she died of an unrelated heart attack. Chain of causation broken. But for the son she would still have died.
Rule one of legal causation
D must have done something wrong. Connection between D’s actions and consequences. Case of Dalloway- cart driver not holding reins resulted in the death of a child. He was acquitted because the court said the child still would have died if he had been holding the reins
Rule 2 is legal causation
Take the victim as you find them (thin skull rule). The D must accept all peculiarities of the victim ( ill health and beliefs). Responsible even if the consequences are far worse then they foresaw. Case of Blaue- Jehovah’s Witness was stabbed, refused transfusion and died. D was guilty of manslaughter
Rule 3 of legal causation
D need only accelerate death, they do not have to be the sole cause. The culpable act must accelerate death
Rule 4 of legal causation
Intervening events. The accused Is still responsible if the jury are satisfied that the original injury is still the substantial cause of death
A) intervening actions of victim
-refuse treatment etc does not break chain
-try to escape ‘Roberts principle of daft behaviour’ (case)
B) intervening actions of 3rd parties
Non-medical: a voluntary intervention may break the chain of causation eg Anne puts poison in Berts food but Carol shoots Bert dead, Anne is no longer a cause of death.
Medical: courts reluctant to find medical treatment can break chain.
What type of crimes is causation used in?
‘Result’
Case of Smith (intervening 3rd parties)
A man is stabbed with a bayonet. Whilst being rushed to a medical centre he is dropped and the treatment he receives worsened his condition. Despite this the original attacker was guilty of murder. Chain not broken
Case of Cheshire (intervening 3rd parties)
Man shot in chip shop. Rushed to hospital where he received incorrect treatment resulting in the man dying. Chain not broken, Cheshire guilty.
Case of Jordan (intervening 3rd parties)
The V was stabbed. After 8 days in history the wound was almost healed but he was injected with the wrong medication and died. The chain was broken, the treatment was palpably wrong. D did not cause the death
