Causation (AR)

Question 1

authority, principle

But-for Causation

Answer 1

R v Hughs [2013]
- principle:
- confirmed but-for causation as part of law.
- Also states that it is not necessarily enough to be legally effective cause (due to the extremely wide potential
- The rule is rule-of-thumb (applies for the most part) (eg two snipers hired to kill same person at same time and shoot at same time and undeterminable which shot killed V- both would claim but-for for the other but Court would likely incriminate both regardless)

Question 2

Legal Causation

Answer 2

for D’s action to be culpable of AR
Cato [1976]
Principle:
- D’s conduct need not be the sole cause
- D’s conduct must be more than merely de minimis
- D’s conduct need not be a direct cause (just effectively bearing acceleration of affect)
- D’s conduct must (in a sense) be a culpable cause

Question 2

Culpable Causation

Question 3

what are they, what principles, and tests.

Intervening Acts

Answer 3

4 types:

Natural Events

Third Parties:
- Pagett (1983): TEST, enough that D had significant contribution, free deliberate and informed breaks causal chain, self defence act s 3(1) protects V even if free deliberate and informed.

• Kennedy (no2): - free, deliberate and informed example.

Field [2021]: not free deliberate and informed example.

Acts of the victim:
- Williams 1992 - TEST, proportionate, reasonably foreseeable, under characteristics of V and circumstances, thin skull rule (take as they are).
- Martin (1832) - thin skull rule
- Blaue [1975] - religion is in thin skull rule.

Medical Intervention
- R v Cheshire - sufficient if D’s act contributed significantly.
- R v Smith - second cause must be so substantial as to make first wound inoperating to the effect (mere history)

Question 4

Natural Events

Answer 4

• D will only break chain if natural event is not foreseeable as likely in the normal course of events by reasonable person.
• Even if unforeseeable, chain will not break if D had specialised, expert, or actual knowledge the ordinary reasonable person would not have (authority?)

Question 5

Third Parties

Answer 5

TEST

Pagett (1983)
- it is enough that D’s act contributed significantly to result,
- affirmed ‘free, deliberate, and informed’ (where 3rd party meets these then intervening act occurs)

• ADDS where 3rd party act is in question is: (a) a reasonable act of self-defence in response to the acts of D, or
• (b) A reasonable act done in the execution of a duty to prevent a crime or arrest of an offender, causal chain will not be broken (third party cannot break chain in prevention of crime… S3(1) Self Defence Act

Kennedy (no 2) [2007]
- The free, deliberate, and informed intervention of a second person, who intends to exploit the situation created by the first, but is not acting in concert with him, is normally held to relieve the first actor of criminal responsibility.”

Question 6

test, authority

Medical Internvention

Answer 6

TEST

Cheshire [1991]
- D’s act need not be sole cause or even main cause of death, it being sufficient that his acts contributed significantly to that result.

Smith [1959]
- only if the second cause is so substantial as to make the original wound merely part of the history can it be said that death does not flow from the wound

when it will be found:
Jordan (1956):
- where it was evidenced that death was not caused from stab (AR) which had virtually healed by time of death. Found ‘palpably wrong’ medical treatment.

When not found:
Field [2021] - case about gay couple, will, having V drink to death by leaving whiskey bottle.
- D deliberately led V into dangerous situation and purported to be deeply concerned about wellbeing and safety. V thought whiskey was from such person, not one who wished him dead. D’s undisclosed purpose altered the nature of his conduct. (meaning V was not informed and so was not novus actus interveniens).
- Compare to Kennedy (No2) - the Court in Field found that V was not free, voluntary and informed and V was not privy to the true intention of D

Question 7

Conduct of the Victim

Answer 7

TEST
Williams [1992] - case where hitchiker jumped out of car due to SA and suffered fatal injuries.

• V’s reaction must be ‘proportionate to the threat’ and not ‘so daft as to make it his own voluntary act which amounted to a novus actus interveniens and consequently broke chain.
• V’s response must be reasonable foreseeable (not by D necessarily)
• Jury should bear in mind any particular characteristic of V and the fact that in the agony of the moment he may act without though and deliberation.
• D must take V as they find them (thin skull rule)

Thin Skull Rule:
- established in Martin (1832)
- Blaue [1975] says includes religion