Causation Flashcards
R v White
the defendant put poison in his mothers drink with the intention to kill her but when she was found dead she had only drank 3/4 of the glass. Medics evidence showed that she died of heart failure.
Law: the defendant was convicted of attempted murder. His actions intended to kill her but they did.not cause her death and therefore there was no actual reus of murder
What is a chain of causation?
The prosecution has to establish that the link between the defendant and the injuries suffered by the victim is broke.
What are the two types of causation?
Causation in fact and causation in law
What is causation in fact?
But for the defendants conduct would the victim have suffered the injury? did the injuries arise because of the defendants actions?
Case to support causation is fact
R v Pagett (1983)
Pagett used his girlfriend as a human shield dying a shoot out wth the police. She got killed in the crossfire and Pagett was convicted with manslaughter, ‘but for’ his actions she would not have been killed
What is causation in law?
It is whether the defendants actions made a significant contribution to the victims injuries. Although there may have been more than one person whose act may have contributed to the consequence the defendant will be guilty if his actions significantly contributed to the outcome, or if his actions were an operative and substantial cause of harm.
R v Balue (1975)
Case facts: the defendant stabbed the victim who was a johavahs witness and as a consequence needed a blood transfusion. She refused this on religious grounds and died as a consequence
Law: the defendant was guilty as his actions were the substantial and operative cause of harm. The thin skull rule applies here.
R v Cheshire (1991)
Case facts: the defendant shot his victim and the victim was given negligent hospital treatment and subsequently died.
Law: despite the act the original wound was no longer life threatening, the chain of causation was not broken and the defendant was held to have caused their death.
R v Jordan (1956)
Case facts: the victim had been stabbed and was receiving treatment in a hospital where a doctor negligently ordered that a large does of antibiotics was to be administrated, he died from an allergic reaction.
Law: the defendant was found to be not guilty as the doctors actions were held to be palpably wrong and as a result broke the chain of causation.
How does R v Smith relate to R v Jordan
In the case of R v Smith the defendant argued that the chain of causation had been broken by the way the victim had been treated, as they were dropped off a stretcher twice and haven inappropriate medication. However, he was fond guilty of murder as the original stab wound was held to be the operative and substantial cause of harm.
What is the thin skull rule?
“You must take your victim as you find them”, even if this means your victim has pre-existing medical condition or certain religious beliefs and values.
Give two cases to support the thin skull rule
R v Balue ( 1975)
Jehovah’s witness refused a blood transfusion which would’ve been life saving after being stabbed.
R v Hayward (1908)
Defendant chased his wife out of the house during ana argument. She collapsed and died. Defendant was liable for constructive manslaughter because you take your victim as you find them even though he wasn’t aware of her heart condition.
What is intervening acts?
whether there is an intervening act that breaks the chain of causation
What is another word for intervening acts?
novus actus interveniens
What is foreseeability?
Whether the outcome was a foreseeable consequence of the defendants actions
