Causation Criminal Law Flashcards
In which type of crimes must causation be established?
Result Crimes
Definition of Causation
Refers to the enquiry as to whether the Defendants conduct caused harm or damage
What is the rule of thumb regarding causation?
Where D, by a wrongful act, voluntarily initiates a casual sequence which results in harm, which would not have occurred otherwise, they will normally be held accountable unless an act sooner or later occurs which rids the initial act of casual potency
Can you explain the 1st step in establishing causation
Factual Causation
“But for” test R v White
- Would the result have not happened but for the defendant’s conduct
- So would the victim have died anyways if not for the defendants conduct
Explain the case of R v White and the precedent it sets
Factual Causation
Poison (Son not a factual cause because she was going to die anyways). Defendant put cyanide in mothers drink intending to kill her. She drank a short amount but medical evidence showed she died of a heart attack unrelated to the poison. So she was going to die anyways
R v Morby (1882) Precedent + Facts
- In relation to factual causation “but for” test FAILS
- Fathers conviction for manslaughter on child quashed
- Prosecution could not prove that the child would have survived even with medical treatment
R v Dalloway Facts + Precedent
Defendant did not have his hands on the rail so convicted of manslaughter
Quashed, Defendant would not have been able to stop the cart in time even if he had been holding the reins
Not blameworthy + fails but for test
BLAMEWORTHY
R v Dyson
D’s conduct does not have to start the process leading to the result - it is enough to accelerate it
R v Mitchell (1983) CA:
Causal Connection can be indirect
- Defendant tries to enter a queue but not at the right place gets into an altercation and the person pushed falls onto an elderly lady who dies of a condition.
R v Benge
Can be more than one cause
Railway worker misread time of the train and took of the tracks but if his flagman had been placed in better positions and the driver had been better then he would not have died. But they included with this is a cause
Rules of Factual Causation
- But for test
- Can be an act or omission
- Can have more than one cause
- Can be indirect
- Can accelerate the result (does not need to start it)
2nd Step of proving Causation
Establishing Legal Causation
D’s conduct must be the legal cause of the result -> MORAL connection between conduct and result
1.) Substantial -> R v Wallace
2.) Blameworthy -> Dalloway
3.) Operative -> D must still be a significant cause when the result comes about
Where does the substantial element of proving legal causation come from and please explain
R v Smith (“operating and substantial cause. Was the initial wound still the cause of the death? Here a soldier got stabbed but dropped on the way to the hospital. They gave him the wrong treatment but was he liable? YES his wound was still the operating cause ) but shifted to Wallace -> SIGNIFICANT CAUSE
R v Muhammed
R v Muhammed defined Significant as “more than negligible”
R v Hughes
“Where there are multiple legally effective causes… it suffices if the act or omission under consideration is a significant (or substantial) cause, in the sense that it is not de minimis or minimal”. Defendant convicted for causing death while uninsured, but was driving perfectly safely. However, the actual driving was faultless. Mere presence on the road is not enough. This is relevant to the blameworthy part
What elements break the chain of causation
1.) Omissions
2.) Naturally Occurring Events
3.) Third Parties
4.) Victim
How can an Omission break the chain of causation?
Will typically not sever the chain of causation by victims or third parties. So the defendant will most probably be held liable for the murder. The killer should still be blamed
Blaue - Jehovas witness (refused blood transfusion)
Holland - not taking care of injuries
Cheshire - not taking care of injuries
What is the reasoning behind the legal stance for omissions breaking the chain of causation
Should wrongdoers be able to set harm into motion and argue that someone else should act to put a stop to it? Students get confused in applying this when an intervening act (duty to act) and the breach are only considered when considering the liability of someone.
Naturally Occurring Events breaking the chain of causation
Can break the chain of causation only if unforeseeable or abnormal.
Bush v Commonwealth - ordinary infection
(Kentucky) -> Suffered stabbing wounds + getting treated. Contracted Scarlett fever which killed them instead -> unforeseeable
Where a third party plays a part in the cause where will he not be held liable (Third party)
**1.) 3rd not be held liable if D’s act is still a substantive and operating cause. **
R v Benge (1865). If your action is still operating at the time of death then it is more likely that it will not break the chain of causation. Chain of Causation not broken.
2.) D’s conduct is reasonable -> no break
R v Pagett - Girl used as human shield case (police officer shot got but not liable because he was shooting in self defence)
“A reasonable act performed for the purpose of self-preservation, and an act done in performance of a legal duty” will not break the chain of causation
Case where a doctor broke chain of causation
A case example where the chain of causation was broken is R v Jordan.
The victim died 8 days after the stabbing, by which time the original stab wound was healing well.
Do doctors or medical cases generally break the chain of causation? Give examples
Doctors are very rarely considered to be at fault
R v Smith -> “Only if the second cause is so overwhelming as to make the original wound merely part of the history can it be said the death does not flow from the wound”.
R v Cheshire -> Cheshire shot a man causing a breathing problem which the doctors tried to treat but The doctors inserted a tracheotomy tube, which remained in place for four weeks and initially improved the victim’s condition. Several days later the victim complained of respiratory issues, his condition soon worsened and he died shortly afterwards. The post-mortem found that the victim’s windpipe had narrowed near the location where the tracheotomy pipe had been inserted. Appeal dismissed, the treatment was not independent enough to cause the murder by itself
Principles where a third party breaks the chain of causation
- Third Party’s free involuntary informed conduct can Break chain of causation -** Rafferty**
- Could not have sensibly anticipated -> not going to break the chain of causation - Girdler
- Environmental Agency - “abnormal or extraordinary acts” will break the chain of causation
Most of the time can victims can break the chain of causation?
Most of the time
- R v Holland: Defendant stabbed victim, V refused to treat amputation and died -> Chain of causation not broken
- R v Dear: Defendant took a Stanley knife and the victim started picking his own wounds and left a suicide note -> Chain not broken, wound was still operating
- Eggshell skull rule (R v Blaue) -> take the victim as you find them. V refused blood transfusion on RG and died but did not break chain of causation
