Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

A2 Law - Causation > Causation > Flashcards

Causation Flashcards

1
Q

Can you be found guilty of causation?

A

No

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Which types of crimes is causation relevant to?

A

Result crimes, particularly homicide cases

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Why is causation most relevant to result crimes and homicide cases?

A

Because it must be proven that the act caused the consequences

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is the basic rule of causation?

A

The defendant is only responsible where his acts are both the factual and legal cause of the death

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Where are the rules of causation laid out?

A

There are no rules laid down in statute, the rules have been devised by judges and now other judges must follow the precedent created

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What must the prosecution prove?

A

Factual and legal causation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What is causation divided into?

A

Two main principles, factual and legal causation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What are the main principles of causation?

A

Factual and legal causation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What is the main principle of factual causation?

A

The but for test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What must the prosecution ask to establish factual causation?

A

Would the victim have died but for the defendants conduct?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

In regards to factual causation, how would the victim not be liable for the death of the victim?

A

If the victim would have died anyway, regardless of the defendants actions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What is causation?

A

An element of the actus reus of a crime

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What is the Latin term for the ‘but for’ test?

A

Sine qua non

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What is the sine qua non test?

A

The but for test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What case is relevant to factual causation?

A

White (1910)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What topic is the case of White (1910) relevant to?

A

Factual causation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

When was the case of White?

A

1910

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What case took place in 1910?

A

White

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What happened in the case of White (1910)?

A

A son poisoned his mother by putting cyanide in her drink. But before the cyanide could take effect she died of a heart attack

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What was the outcome of White (1910)?

A

The court used the but for test and found she would’ve died anyway so he was charged with attempted murder rather than murder

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

What is legal causation?

A

It assess whether the defendant is morally to blame, it assess more than just the minimal cause of death. It looks at moral responsibility

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

What cases are relevant to legal causation?

A

Marchant and Muntz (2004)

Kimsey (1996)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

What is the case of Marchant and Muntz (2004) relevant too?

A

Legal causation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

What was the date of Marchant and Muntz?

A

2004

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

What case took place in 2004?

A

Marchant and Muntz

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

What happened in the case of Marchant and Muntz (2004)?

A

A motorcyclist impaled himself on the grab attached to a loading vehicle after driving 80mph

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

What was the outcome of Marchant and Muntz (2004)?

A

It was held the farmer was not morally responsible for even had to grab been concealed by a guard the driver still would’ve died because of the speed he was travelling

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

What was stated in the case of Kimsey (1996)?

A

‘It can be sufficient that the defendants act makes a more than minimal contribution

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

For the defendant to be legally responsible for the victims death what must their actions have been?

A

The operative and substantial cause of the forbidden consequence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

What is the problem with legal causation?

A

The term ‘operative and substantial cause’ is a very elastic term

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

What are the 4 elements to proving legal causation?

A

The thin skull rule
There must be no novus actus interveniens
The defendants action need not be the soul cause of the resulting harm but it must be more than minimal
The harm must come from a culpable act

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

What case is relevant to the thin skull rule?

A

Hayward (1908)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

When was the case of Hayward?

A

1908

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

What case took place in 1908?

A

Hayward

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

What happened in the case of Hayward (1908)?

A

The defendant kicked his wife and she surprisingly died from this injury. It was later discovered from a persistent thyrus gland condition which meant she could die from experiencing a strong emotion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

What is the principle of the thin skull rule?

A

The defendant must take his victim as he finds him

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

What are the intervening acts which may cause a break in the chain of causation?

A

Medical intervention
Actions of the victim
Victim self-neglect
Actions of third parties

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

How was the thin skull rule and intervening acts devised?

A

By cases

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

What may an intervening act do?

A

Break the chain of causation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

What cases are relevant to the intervening act of a third party?

A

Jordan (1955)
Smith (1959)
Cheshire (1991)

41
Q

What is the Latin term for an intervening act?

A

Novus actus interveniens

42
Q

What is novus actus interveniens?

A

An intervening act breaking the chain of causation

43
Q

What is the case of Jordan (1956) relevant to?

A

Medical negligence rarely breaking the chain of causation

44
Q

What is the case of Smith (1959) relevant to?

A

Medical negligence often not breaking the chain of causation

45
Q

What is the case of Cheshire (1991) relevant to?

A

Medical negligence often not breaking the chain of causation

46
Q

In what year did the case of Jordan happen?

A

1956

47
Q

In what year did the case of Smith happen?

A

1959

48
Q

In what year did the case of Cheshire happen?

A

1991

49
Q

What case happened in 1956?

A

Jordan

50
Q

What case happened in 1959?

A

Smith

51
Q

What case happened in 1991?

A

Cheshire

52
Q

What happened in the case of Jordan (1956)?

A

The wound the victim had been admitted to hospital for had almost healed. The hospital then administered incorrect medical treatment and the victim died

53
Q

How did the court describe the events in the case of Jordan (1956)?

A

‘Palpably wrong’

54
Q

What was the outcome of the case or Jordan (1956)?

A

The court declared the treatment to be ‘palpably wrong’ and the intervening act was held to have broken the chain of causation.

55
Q

What happened in the case of Smith (1959)?

A

A fight broke out between the defendant and the victim who was then stabbed serval times. A fellow soldier attempted to carry the victim to the medical wing on the barracks but he was dropped several times en route. The victim received very poor treatment and died.

56
Q

What was the outcome of the case of Smith (1959)?

A

The court held the original wound was still the operative and substantial cause of death and the defendants appeal was dismissed

57
Q

What happened in the case of Cheshire (1991)?

A

The defendant was shot in the stomach and the doctors performed a tracheotomy. The wind pipe was so narrow the victim died two months later.

58
Q

What was the out come of the case of Cheshire (1991)?

A

The defendant tried to argue the hospital broke the chain of causation but the court held that the original wound was the operative and substantial cause of death and the defendants murder conviction was upheld.

59
Q

What is the point of law in the cases of Jordan (1956), Smith (1959) and Cheshire (1991)?

A

That only very extraordinary cases will break the chain of causation

60
Q

Why are courts reluctant to prosecute doctors?

A

Because it can be difficult to establish when it is their fault
Medicine is unpredictable
Courts are reluctant to absolve the defendant from responsibility
If there are more cases like Jordan (1956) it sets precedent which means more defendants can be excused of unacceptable behaviour (public policy)

61
Q

Does turning off a life support machine break the chain of causation?

A

No

62
Q

What cases illustrate turning off a life support machine will not break the chain of causation?

A

Malcherek and Steel both in 1981

63
Q

What cases took place in 1981?

A

Malcherek and Steel

64
Q

In what year did the cases of Malcherek and Steel happen?

A

1981

65
Q

What happened in the case of Malcherek (1981)?

A

Malcherek stabbed his wife 9 times and she ended up on a life support machine which was subsequently turned off

66
Q

What happened in the case of Steel (1981)?

A

Steel randomly attacked a woman and she ended up on a life support machine

67
Q

Why are the cases of Steel and Malcherek discussed together?

A

Because they took place in the same year and share the same point of law which was subsequently turned off

68
Q

What was the outcome of Malcherek and Steel (1981)?

A

There murder convictions were upheld

69
Q

Do the actions of the victim break the chain of causation?

A

Usually no, unless their actions are disproportionate for the circumstances. If the victims actions fail the daftness test.

70
Q

What cases are relevant to actions of the victim and the chain of causation?

A

Roberts (1972)

Marjoram (1999)

71
Q

In what year did the case of Roberts take place?

A

1972

72
Q

In what year did the case of Marjoram take place?

A

1999

73
Q

What case took place in 1972?

A

Roberts

74
Q

What case took place in 1999?

A

Marjoram

75
Q

What happened in the case of Roberts (1972)?

A

The defendant gave the victim a lift and made sexual advances. As a result she jumped out the car and was injured.

76
Q

What was the outcome of Roberts (1972)?

A

His conviction for ABH was upheld and the courts stated his actions were the operative and substantial cause of her injuries

77
Q

What did the case of Roberts (1972) create?

A

The daftness test

78
Q

What is the daftness test?

A

It assesses if the victim done something so unexpected that no reasonable person could be expected to foresee it

79
Q

Why was the daftness test created?

A

Because of the case of Roberts (1972)

80
Q

What happened in the case of Marjoram (1999)?

A

A group of youths kicked down the victims hostel door, in fear jumped out the window.

81
Q

What was the outcome of Marjoram (1999)?

A

The courts held that a reasonable person could foresee such a reaction and the defendants GBH conviction was upheld.

82
Q

What is victim self-neglect?

A

If the victim neglects his/her injuries the chain of causation will not be broken

83
Q

Will the chain of causation be broken if a victim neglects their own injuries?

A

No

84
Q

What case is relevant to victim self-neglect?

A

Dear (1996)

85
Q

What case took place in 1996?

A

Dear

86
Q

In what year did the case of Dear take place?

A

1996

87
Q

What happened in the case of Dear (1996)?

A

The defendant slashed the victim with a Stanley knife and severed an artery. For reasons that are unclear, the victim removed stitches after treatment. The wound became infected and he died.

88
Q

What was the outcome of Dear (1996)?

A

The defendant attempted to appeal claiming the victim committed suicide. The court of appeal dismissed the appeal, stating the initial injuries were the operative and substantial cause of death so his murder conviction was upheld.

89
Q

Briefly explain the evaluation points…

A

Operant and substantial are elastic terms
Developed on a case by case basis, no more than a ‘moral reaction’
Causation is shaped by public policy

90
Q

Is it good or bad the term operant and substantial cause is an elastic term?

A

On the surface, one might argue it is a bad thing because it can allow a greater scope for people to break the chain of causation. However, it is clear this is in fact a good thing as it works in favour of the courts whom ultimately decide the verdict. It is clear from the cases associated with causation that there is no greater scope due to the strict, relatively consistent rulings which uphold public policy

91
Q

What topic and Clarkson and Keating relevant too?

A

The evaluation point that causation has developed on a case by case basis

92
Q

What did Clarkson and Keating argue?

A

That causation has developed on a case by case basis and lacks coherence. It is not governed by any underlying principles and it is no more than a ‘moral reaction’

93
Q

Explain the public policy evaluation point…

A

Causation is shaped by public policy and too often the courts decisions reflect the need to protect institutions such as hospitals and the police.

94
Q

What is relevant to the public policy evaluation point?

A

Cheshire and smith

95
Q

What is Cheshire and smith relevant to?

A

Causation evaluation points

96
Q

What did Cheshire and smith reveal?

A

Judicial reluctant to absolve the defendant front liability where the victims received negligent not hospital treatment

97
Q

The courts have made their policy towards hospitals clear, what is it?

A

Only the most extra ordinary and unusual cases of medical negligence will break the chain of causation. Hospitals have limited resources and assailants should not escape liability because the victim didn’t receive the best treatment.

98
Q

Which decision can be criticised as an evaluation point?

A

The decision in blaue 1975 can be criticised for its harshness as it involved her religious beliefs.

A2 Law - Causation (1 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions