Causation

Question 1

Define causation

Answer 1

Result crimes require proof of consequence

Prosecution must prove that D’s act or omission caused resulting consequence

Question 2

What must the jury decide

Answer 2

A casual link between D’s conduct and the resulting consequence

Question 3

Principle of causation

Answer 3

D’s conduct was a legal and factual cause of the victims death or injuries

Question 4

Explain factual causation

Answer 4

The ‘But For’ Test - White [1910]

The resulting consequence would not have occurred ‘but for’ D’s conduct.

If the resulting consequence would have happened anyway D would not be liable

Question 5

Explain legal causation

Answer 5

Requires unbroken chain of causation leading to resulting consequence

D need not be the sole or main cause of death but a significant contribution

Question 6

Two leading cases of causation

Answer 6

Pagett [1984] - Human Shield

Smith [1959] - only if second cause so overwhelming as to make original wound part of history

Question 7

Explain the phrase ‘Novus Actus Interveniens’

Answer 7

A new intervening act that can break chain of causation and absolve D’s liability

Question 8

Two cases where acts of victim actions taken into account

Answer 8

Morjoram [2000] - V jumped out of window

Reasonably foreseeable

Corbett [1966] V running from D tripped and fell into car

V attempting to escape D to escape harm not so daft to break chain of causation

Question 9

Explain the Thin Skull Rule

Answer 9

A pre existing condition will not absolve D of liability

Blaue [1975]

Take victim as you find him

Question 10

Two cases involving drugs when deciding causation

Answer 10

Cato - D injected V - Causation proven

Dias - V self injected - Causation broken

Question 11

Can a third party break chain of causation?

Answer 11

Benge [1865] Yes

Pagett [1983] No if third party act is reasonable response to D’s initial act

Question 12

Cases where medical negligence break chain of causation

Answer 12

Cheshire [1991] - Tracheotomy

Only most extraordinary and unusual cases can break chain of causation

Jordan [1956] - Allergic reaction

D’s conduct is independent and potent to death then jury can convict

Positive act of negligence in both cases

Question 13

Comment of medical negligence

Answer 13

Wrong to find medical professionals liable when D is the original cause