Causation

Question 1

White 1910

Answer 1

Causation part 1: Factual causation
‘but for’ the defendants actions would the consequences occurred
Facts: son put poison in his mothers drink but she died of a heart attack before she drank it
Held: Not responsible for her murder since but for his actions she still would have died, still charged with attempted murder

Question 2

Smith 1959

Answer 2

Causation part 2: legal causation
Key case for establishing that legal causation needs the defendants actions or omissions to be the ‘subtantial an operating cause’ of the victims death (homicide)
Held: the stab wound was still significant and contibutory

Question 3

Hennigan 1971

Answer 3

Defendants actions or omissions do not need to be the sole or even the main cause of the victims death (homicide)

Question 4

McKechnie 1929

Answer 4

Defendants actions can be an indirect cause of the victims death to establish causation

Question 5

Blaue 1975

Answer 5

‘Thin skull rule’ - you must take you victim as you find them i.e. it does not break causation if the victim is specifically affected by the act
Facts: D stabbed V and she was a practicing Jehovah’s witness so she didn’t accept a blood transfusion and died
Held: wound was still operating cause, the victims actions did not act as a novus actus interveniens, extended the thin skull rule to include ‘the whole man, not just the physical man’ (Lawton LJ)

Question 6

Pagett 1983

Answer 6

Novus actus interveniens? Acts of a 3rd party
Facts: D used women as a human shield and fired his gun at police, police returned fire. D held liable for her death
Held: acts of third parties cannot be considered to break causation if those acts are not ‘free, deliberate and informed’ and so not voluntary

Question 7

R v Roberts 1972

Answer 7

Reasonable attempt to escape?
Created the Daftness test
Did the victim do something that was so daft the defendant couldn’t foresee it?
Facts: defendant and victim in a car together, D tugged at her clothes, V thought she would be sexually attacked and jumped out of the moving car sustaining serious injuries
Held: Vs actions were not daft/unforeseeable and so D is still liable

Question 8

R v Williams 1992

Answer 8

Failed daftness test ( reasonable attempt to escape)
Facts: victim jumped out of a moving car when D attempted to steal Vs wallet
Held: victims act was daft, broke causation, unreasonable reaction to the circumstances, not reasonably foreseeable, disproportionate to the threat, defendant not liable as unforeseeable