Causation Flashcards
Causation in fact
Did the result come about because of D’s conduct
Causation in law
Was D’s conduct a substantial, blameworthy and operating cause?
Both must be met for there to be causation in law
Causation in fact
Factual causation is whether the result came about because of D’s contributory act or her failure (omission) to prevent the result
The ‘but for test’
It must be proved that, but for D’s conduct element, the result would not have come about
If D’s conduct is not a factual cause, as in White, there will be no causation
White (1910)
F- D put poison in his mothers drink (V) intending to kill her
She died but due to an unrelated heart condition
D was not guilty of murder but attempted murder as this does not require causation
What causation in fact leads to
Accelerating the result
- As long as D’s conduct caused the result to come around when it did, she is the factual cause
- Irrelevant if it would have come about later without D’s involvement
More than one cause
- as long as the result would not have happened but for D’s conduct, it is not necessary to show that D was the only cause
- case of Benge
Benge (1846)
Railways foreman misread a timetable when taking up sections of track
A train arrived when the track was up and V was killed
D guilty of gross negligence manslaughter
Was THAT individual the cause in relation to the crime? Other people may be too
Causation in law
Known as subjective
Legal cause must be substantial
D’s involvement must have a substantial contribution to the result
Implies that D is the main cause
Legal cause must be ‘ blameworthy’
Conduct that has caused the result
Then ask if the conduct is blameworthy conduct that is the target of the criminal law
Dalloway
D was driving a horse and cart on a highway, whilst negligently allowing the reins to lie on the horse’s back rather then keeping control of them
Small child ran into the road and was killed
Even if D had control of the reins, he could not have stopped them in time to save V
D was not guilty of Gross negligence mans slaughter
Hugh’s
D was driving without insurance and a full license
Was involved in a fatal collision with V
V was on the wrong side of the road under the influence
Crown court- did not cause death
COA- no mens rea allowed
SC- reinstated crown courts decision
Offence requires some more than minimal fault/blameworthiness
Legal cause must be ‘operative’
D’s conduct must still be a significant cause of the result at the time it comes about
The chain of causation between conduct and result elements must not be broken
If D voluntarily takes action the chain of causation is broken
Roberts
D was driving home after a party began making unwanted sexual advances towards her, threatening her and touching her coat
V jumped out of the moving car and suffered ABH
S47 offences against the person 1861
COA upheld
Kennedy (no2) (2007)
D supplied v with a prepared syringe of heroin
V self injected the drug and died as a result
D was charged with manslaughter on the basis that his unlawful conduct (drug supply) caused vs death
Guilty of constructive manslaughter
COA upheld
HOL- Quashed D’s conviction on appeal- D was not the legal cause of D’s death
Blaue (1975)
D stabbed V
V required a blood transfusion to save her life but refused on religious grounds (being a Jehovah’s Witness)
V died and D was charged with her manslaughter
COA- upheld stating Vs refusal did not break the chain of causation
Jordan (1956)
D stabbed V
Vs wound was largely healed
X doctor administered a large quantity of a drug to which V had shown to be intolerant
Palpably wrong
D charged with murder
COA- quashed conviction
Xs acts broke the chain of causation so that D was not the legal cause of death
Smith (1959)
D stabbed v in a fight between soldiers from different regiments
When carrying V to the medical reception X dropped him twice
Y (doctor) failed to note that the wound had pierced a lung and provided thoroughly bad treatment
D charged with manslaughter
Cc guilty of constructive manslaughter
COA- upholding D’s conviction- D remained a legal cause of vs death
Cheshire (1991)
D shot V
In hospital V was treated with wounds ceased to be life threatening
Negligently performed tracheotomy by a doctor the windpipe narrowed and he died
COA- guilty of murder
D was still the legal cause of death
Pagett (1983)
D, to resist a lawful arrest, held V in front of him as a human shield and shot at the police (X)
X returned fire and killed V
D was charged with the manslaughter of V
Guilty of constructive manslaughter
COA upholding D’s conviction
D was still the legal cause of Vs death
Issues with certain types of offences
Empress Car Co Ltd (1999)
D allowed oil to be stored but did not take precautions to prevent the foreseeable danger that someone would release it into the river
X released the oil
D was charged with offences relating to the river
Guilty of pollution offences
HOL- D remained a legal cause
Intervention from D
Will only break the coding if it is part of a new transaction
Intervention from naturally occurring events
Will only break the chain if it is unforeseen by D and unforeseeable by a reasonable person
Intervention from the victim
(1) will break the chain if it is unforeseen by D and unforeseeable by a reasonable person
(2) will break the chain if it is free, voluntary and informed
(3) D must take the victim as he finds him
Intervention from a third party
(1) Will break the chain if it is unforeseen by D and unforeseeable by a reasonable person
(2) Will break the chain if it is free, voluntary and informed
(3) special categories of third parties and offences will apply different rules
