causation and intro to defence

Question 1

comptaneity rule

Answer 1

• The coincidence of AR and MR happening at the same time

Question 2

Fagan V MPC (1969) (metropolitan police constabulary)

Answer 2

• There are 2 elements to this case
  1) Fagan parked a car on a policeman’s foot
  2) Upon realisation that his car was parked on the PC’s foot, he then refused to remove the car from the position

Question 3

coincedence of AR and MR in the Fagan case

Answer 3

• The first stage was AR of being parked on the PC’s foot

- The second stage was the MR when Fagan decided to remain parked on the PC’s foot

Question 4

what did the Fagan case develop

Answer 4

a legal precedent (common law in action) to ensure that this didn’t become routine

• If not for the development, there would actually have been no offence – as there wasn’t sufficient coincidence of AR & MR at the right timing
• The case was considered to be a ‘continuing act’ in that it begun when the car was rolled onto the foot and ended after the decision was made to remain there
• Therefore, allows situations like this to be avoided, whereas before it would have resulted in no charge being bought

Question 5

two types of causation

Answer 5

• There are 2 tests in order to establish if the defendant’s actions or omissions caused the harm or damage
• You must be able to stablish that the defendants conduct was both a caused in fact and law

Question 6

why do you need to establish the defendants conduct was caused in both fact and law

Answer 6

• This is vital in result crimes (murder, non fatals, theft etc)
• When charging with a crime you must ensure the D has satisfied both AR & MR and that the D was the one who caused the result in the circs
• It is entirely probable that someone can haver AR and MR but at the last minute the result is caused by something else

Question 7

factual causation

Answer 7

• Requires that the defendant caused the outcome as a fact- if they weren’t there what would have happened
• But for the test
• But for the defendant’s actions would the victim have been hurt?
• If yes- would have happened no liability for the D
• If no, wouldn’t have, liability for D

Question 8

R v White (1910) and the but for test

Answer 8

• White served his mother a cup of tea, laced with cyanide. She then had a heart attack before consuming the cup of tea and died of natural causes
• D was not convicted of her death, as he was not the factual cause of her death
• He was however convicted of Att Murder
• But for his actions, would she still be alive?

Question 9

legal causation

Answer 9

• Multiple elements which come into play here:
• 1) number of causes- any defendants who satisfy factual causation
• 2) significant cause- multiple wounds which satisfy factual
• 3) operating cause – handful of injuries at time of death

Question 10

page 1983

Answer 10

• “In Law, the accused’s act need not be the sole cause, or event the main cause, of the victim’s death, it being enough that his act contributed significantly to that result.”

Question 11

how many causes is enough causes

Answer 11

• Likely that very trivial causes and contributions would be ignored- scratches compared to stabbing
• ‘de minimis’ ignore trivialities
• The test for inclusion of causes is from Kimsey (1996) and Hughes (2013) in which the causes must be more than slight, trifling, minimal

Question 12

breaking the chain

Answer 12

• The chain can be broken and if it is, by a recognised event, than the liability can shift from the defendant to another party
• It must be entirely unforeseeable event (unlike in Pagett 1983, where the shooting was foreseeable)

Question 13

victim’s intervening acts

Answer 13

• The victim themselves can be the intervening act- by doing something unforeseeable, it will then absolve the D of their liability
• Self-injection of drugs, over reaction, neglecting injury

Question 14

medical intervention or negligence

Answer 14

• Extreme or gross medical negligence can break the chain of causation and although rare does happen
• Was the medical care ‘independent’ and ‘extraordinary’ to warrant breaking the chain?

Question 15

current test

Answer 15

• The current test for factual causes is whether the “acts for which the defendant is responsible, significantly contribute to the victims death?”
• Warburton and Hubbersty (2006)

Question 16

transferred malice

Answer 16

• Created for when people get in the way of the defendant effectively
• Woman waits at home to shoot her husband, the neighbor opened the door (concerned that she has been burgled) and the Woman shoots her, instead of her husband
• Clearly the AR and MR here aren’t matched – The AR is for the neighbor, while the MR is for the husband
• Welcome the doctrine of Transferred Malice

Question 17

explaining transferred malice

Answer 17

• Firstly – it only applies where the crime committed was the same as the crime intended (aka, shooting the neighbor instead of husband – same crime, wrong victim)
• R v Latimer – only when crimes are the same

Question 18

how long does transferred malice last

Answer 18

• Effectively, from the moment of MR and AR began from Crime A and to the end of Crime B – to ensure that the person transferring has got full responsibility