Causation Flashcards
What are the two principles of causation?
Factual and legal
Recite the ‘but for’ rule
But for the defendants actions, Would the consequence have occurred to V
What case is used to explain the use of the But for rule
R v White 1910
What is the purpose of factual causation?
Factual causation looks at whether the defendants actions caused the end result
What is the purpose of legal causation?
Legal causation looks at whether the defendant can be blamed for the end result
What are the three required concepts to be met by the defendant for legal causation?
Substantial cause - R v Kimsey 1996 ‘something more than a slight or trifling link’
Blameworthy cause - R v Dalloway 1847 there must be an element of fault, D’s blame worthy conduct caused the consequence
Operative cause - the defendant must remain the operative cause of harm. Meaning the operation of his act must remain the significant cause of the end result, and must not be superseded by another act
What are the three ways in which the chain of causation can be broken?
Act of a third party
Act of the victim
Act of god
What are the requirements for an act of a third party to break the chain of causation?
R v Kennedy 2008
The third parties act is ‘free, deliberate and informed’ and the defendant is no longer the ‘substantial and operating cause’
What are the three cases relating to medical breaks in the chain of causation?
R v Smith - two soldiers fighting, one stabbed, punctured lung, chest compressions by tired doctor. Soldier convicted injury inflicted still substantial and operating.
R v Jordan - stabbed, hospital aware of allergy to antibiotics, doctor gave him some not reading is file, doctors treatment palpably wrong and chain causation broken.
R v Cheshire - shot, tracheotomy which failed a few months later causing death, defendant still convicted
R v Malcherek - switching b off life support after injuries have healed doesn’t ‘exonerate my defendant from responsibility for the death
Acts of a Victim
What is the Daftness or reasonableness test ?
R v Roberts 1971
Was it the natural result of what the alleged assailant said and did, in the sense that it was something that could reasonably have been foreseen as the consequence of what he was saying or doing?
R v Majoram 2000 jury should be concerned with whether the reaction was foreseeable to an ordinary person and not to a person of the defendants age and characteristics
Give examples of acts of victims that didn’t constitute a break in the chain of causation?
Refusal to consent to medical treatment R v Blaue 1975
Neglect of injuries R v Well 1802
Aggregation of injuries R v Deer 1996
Suicide R v Dhaliwal 2006
What is the thin skull rule?
The victim must be taken as they are found, so regardless of heightened susceptibility to the defendants actions.
R v Blaue, refused blood transplant
R v Hayward 1908 thyroid condition put under stress from being chased killed her
