Causation AR Flashcards
When is causation relevant?
In any result crime
D’s actions must have caused consequence
Where can the rules on causation be found?
Not laid down in statute
Rules of application = developed by precedents set out by judges
What must the prosecution prove?
Factual + legal causation to show that the D has AR of crime
When is a D responsible for the V’d death?
Where his acts = both factual + legal cause of V’s death
What test proves that a D is the factual causation of a V’s death?
‘But for’ test
BUT FOR the D’s actions, would the V have died?
Yes, D = not liable
No, D = liable
What case illustrates factual causation?
White (1910)
White (1910)
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)
What is leal causation?
Closely related to moral responsibility
D’s acts must be more than minimal COD
Asks if D is morally to blame
What case illustrate legal causation?
Merchant + Muntz (2004)
Murchant + Muntz (2004)
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
What does the law insist on when deciding if a D is legally responsible for the death of a V?
D’s actions = an operative + substantial cause of the forbidden consequence
- elastic term, causes problems, judges interpret it differently
What is causation?
Type of AR that needs to be proven to ensure that D ‘caused’ crime to occur
What is the ‘Thin Skull Rule’?
D must take his V as he finds him
Irrespective of any underlying physical/ mental condition
Name the 2 cases that illustrate the ‘Thin Skull Rule’
- Hayward (1908)
2. Blaue (1975)
What is the latin phrase for a break in the chain of causation?
Nouvus actus interveniens
What are the 4 ways that an break in the chain of causation can happen?
- Intervening act of a 3rd party (medical neg)
- Actions of the V
- V self neglect
- Actions of a 3rd party
Can medical negligence break the chain of causation?
Yes
Illustrated in Jordan (1956)
BUT extraordinary case
Cts reluctant to follow again as it = absolve D from responsibility
Jordan (1956)
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
What does the case of Jordan (1956) show?
Unique case
Only extraordinary cases will break the chain
Cts = reluctant to absolve D from responsibility
Name 2 cases where medical negligence has not broken the chain of causation
- Smith (1959)
2. Cheshire (1991)
Does turning off a life support machine break the chain of causation?
No
Malcherek + Steel (1981)
Malcherek + Steel (1981)
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
Hayward (1908)
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
Blaue (1975)
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
Smith (1959)
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
Cheshire (1991)
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
What case introduced the ‘daftness test’?
Roberts (1972)
What is the ‘daftness test’?
Has the V does something so daft/ unexpected that no reasonable person could be expected to foresee it?
Roberts (1972)
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
Williams + Davis (1992)
Appellant gave lift to hitchhiker
Tried to rob him, jumped out of car
Died of his head injuries
*ASKE EMILY ABOUT
Marjoram (1999)
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
Does V self-neglect break the chain of causation?
No
Cases = considered controversial
Holland (1841)
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
Pagett (1983)
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
How has the decision in Blaue (1975) been criticised?
It’s harshness
Especially where principle is extended to religious beliefs
It was V’s choice, she knew consequences of not receiving blood transfusion
How have Clarkson and Keating criticised the principle of causation?
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’
How has the outcome of Pagett (1983) be criticised?
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
What 3 cases show that causation is shaped by public policy?
- Pagett (1983)
- Cheshire (1991)
- Smith (1959)
