Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

A2 Law > Causation AR > Flashcards

Causation AR Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MBE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

When is causation relevant?

A

In any result crime

D’s actions must have caused consequence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Where can the rules on causation be found?

A

Not laid down in statute

Rules of application = developed by precedents set out by judges

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What must the prosecution prove?

A

Factual + legal causation to show that the D has AR of crime

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

When is a D responsible for the V’d death?

A

Where his acts = both factual + legal cause of V’s death

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What test proves that a D is the factual causation of a V’s death?

A

‘But for’ test
BUT FOR the D’s actions, would the V have died?
Yes, D = not liable
No, D = liable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What case illustrates factual causation?

A

White (1910)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

White (1910)

A

Son poisoned mother with cyanide (milk)
Before poison could work, she had a heart attack + died
Ct asked ‘would she have died but for D’s actions’ - yes
D = G of attempted murder, not murder (hadn’t caused death)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What is leal causation?

A

Closely related to moral responsibility
D’s acts must be more than minimal COD
Asks if D is morally to blame

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What case illustrate legal causation?

A

Merchant + Muntz (2004)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Murchant + Muntz (2004)

A

Motorcyclist implied himself on grab attached to tractor
V = driving 80mph around blind corner
Held Ds = not morally responsible
Even if grab = concealed by guard, V still would’ve died

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What does the law insist on when deciding if a D is legally responsible for the death of a V?

A

D’s actions = an operative + substantial cause of the forbidden consequence
- elastic term, causes problems, judges interpret it differently

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What is causation?

A

Type of AR that needs to be proven to ensure that D ‘caused’ crime to occur

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What is the ‘Thin Skull Rule’?

A

D must take his V as he finds him

Irrespective of any underlying physical/ mental condition

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Name the 2 cases that illustrate the ‘Thin Skull Rule’

A
  1. Hayward (1908)

2. Blaue (1975)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What is the latin phrase for a break in the chain of causation?

A

Nouvus actus interveniens

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What are the 4 ways that an break in the chain of causation can happen?

A
  1. Intervening act of a 3rd party (medical neg)
  2. Actions of the V
  3. V self neglect
  4. Actions of a 3rd party
17
Q

Can medical negligence break the chain of causation?

A

Yes
Illustrated in Jordan (1956)
BUT extraordinary case
Cts reluctant to follow again as it = absolve D from responsibility

18
Q

Jordan (1956)

A

Wound V had been admitted to hospital with = almost healed
Hospital administered incorrect medical treatment
V died
Ct: treatment = ‘palpably wrong’ + intervening act = broken chain of causation
D’s conviction = quashed

19
Q

What does the case of Jordan (1956) show?

A

Unique case
Only extraordinary cases will break the chain
Cts = reluctant to absolve D from responsibility

20
Q

Name 2 cases where medical negligence has not broken the chain of causation

A
  1. Smith (1959)

2. Cheshire (1991)

21
Q

Does turning off a life support machine break the chain of causation?

A

No

Malcherek + Steel (1981)

22
Q

Malcherek + Steel (1981)

A 
2 separate cases, heard together
M, stabbed wife 9 times
S, attacked random woman in Bradford
Both V = on life support machines, turned off
Murder convictions = upheld
23
Q

Hayward (1908)

A

D chased wife into street
Kicked her
Died from injury
Discovered = suffering from persistent thyrus gland condition
Meant could die from experiencing strong emotion
D = G causing death

24
Q

Blaue (1975)

A 
D attacked 18yr girl with knife
Wound pierced lung
Told she needed blood transfusion
Girl refused = Jehovah Witness + died
Ct: wouldn't have died but for Ds stab wound
D = G of causing death
25
Q

Smith (1959)

A

D + V fight in army barracks
V = stabbed several times
Fellow soldier attempted carry him to med wing
Dropped several times + received poor medical treatment, died
Ct: wound = operative COD, D’s appeal = dismissed

26
Q

Cheshire (1991)

A

D + V argument in fish + chip shop
D shot V in stomach
Doctors performed tracheotomy
Windpipe = so narrow, died 2 months later
D argued negligence of hospital broke chain
Ct: Original wound = still operative + substantial COD
D’s murder conviction = upheld

27
Q

What case introduced the ‘daftness test’?

A

Roberts (1972)

28
Q

What is the ‘daftness test’?

A

Has the V does something so daft/ unexpected that no reasonable person could be expected to foresee it?

29
Q

Roberts (1972)

A

D gave the V a lift
Made sexual advances
Girl jumped out of car + injured herself
Held his actions = operative case of injury
Cts introduced daftness test
Held: = reasonably foreseeable that girl may jump out of car
Conviction ABH upheld

30
Q

Williams + Davis (1992)

A

Appellant gave lift to hitchhiker
Tried to rob him, jumped out of car
Died of his head injuries
*ASKE EMILY ABOUT

31
Q

Marjoram (1999)

A

M + gang of youths kicked down hostel door of V
V jumped out of window
Held: any reasonable person could foresee such a reaction
D’s GBH conviction = upheld

32
Q

Does V self-neglect break the chain of causation?

A

No

Cases = considered controversial

33
Q

Holland (1841)

A 
D cut V's finger with iron instrument
Wound became infected
V ignored medical advice to have it amputated
Wound caused lockjaw, V died
Held: chain wasn't broken, wound = COD
34
Q

Pagett (1983)

A

Police trying to arrest D
D grabbed girlfriend and used as human shield + shot at police
Police returned fire
Girl = shot + killed
Held: D had caused death; police reaction = reasonable repose to D firing at them

35
Q

How has the decision in Blaue (1975) been criticised?

A

It’s harshness
Especially where principle is extended to religious beliefs
It was V’s choice, she knew consequences of not receiving blood transfusion

36
Q

How have Clarkson and Keating criticised the principle of causation?

A

Developed on case-to-case basis
Lack of coherent approach
Not governed by any underlying principles
Whether or not causation = established is no more than a ‘moral reaction’

37
Q

How has the outcome of Pagett (1983) be criticised?

A

The morally reprehensible action of police = see as no more than intervening act, D deemed liable for death
Subsequent civil cases, Cts declared police to be negligent, ordered damages to be paid to V’s parents

38
Q

What 3 cases show that causation is shaped by public policy?

A
  1. Pagett (1983)
  2. Cheshire (1991)
  3. Smith (1959)

A2 Law (18 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions