(Causation) G153 Elements Flashcards
Who decides if causation is proved?
The jury
Cause in fact:
Act must be factual cause of the crime. AKA but for test… But for conduct of D, the result would not have occurred.
Case of Pagett
D pulled pregnant GF in front to protect himself during police shoot out and she dies. Guilty of her death, but for D pulling her in front, she would not have died. Chain of causation not broken.
White
D poisoned mothers tea, she drank it but died of an unrelated heart attack. Not guilty of murder (only attempted) as but for him poisoning the tea she would have died anyway. Chain of causation broken.
Cause in law:
D must be legal cause of the crime (for example, if I’m driving along the motorway and someone jumps in front of the car and dies, I may kill them in fact - but I did not legally cause the death)
State rules of legal causation
1) d must have done something wrong
2) thin skull rule
3) d need only accelerate death (de minimum principle)
4) intervening events - Roberts principle of daft behaviour, intervening actions by medical staff
Case of Dalloway
D wasn’t holding reigns of his horse and cart when a boy ran under the wheels and died. D wasn’t liable for the death as if he was in control of the reigns the child still would have died (D didn’t do anything wrong - rule 1 of legal causation)
Outline Thin skill rule
The accused must accept all the per hilarious of the victim (ill health & beliefs). They’re responsible even if the consequence is far worse than they could have foreseen.
Case of Blaue
Thin skull rule - religious beliefs. D was stabbed and refused blood transfusion because she was jags as witness. She does as a result - D still guilty of her death, as he must accept all perculiarities so chain not broken.
Case of Hayward
D chased his wife into the street threatening her. She died of an undiagnosed heart condition. D guilty of her death as he must accept all perculiarities so chain of causation not broken.
Case of Adams (2* not significant)
Deliberately giving a patient pain killers to shorten life is murder, even if they would die in a few weeks. Rule 3 of legal causation - D need only accelerate death - need not be sole cause
Intervening actions of victims - Roberts principle
Case of Roberts - a woman jumped out of a moving car to avoid indecent assault and suffered some injuries. This brought about Roberts principle of daft behaviour , because it was foreseeable that V would do this to avoid the assault then the chain of causation is not broken. D guilty for her injuries.
Intervening actions of 3rd party - Smith
V stabbed twice in back suffering a punctured lung and haemorrhage. On way to hospital V was dropped. At hospital V was given artificial respiration, which made his lung worse. He died - but original attacker was still liable for the death as the mistreatment wasn’t enough to break the chain of causation.
Intervening actions of 3rd party - Jordan (rouge case)
V stabbed in a cafe. 8 days later and almost fully recovered in hospital, he was given the wrong medication and dies. Original attacker not liable because the palpably wrong treatment was enough to break chain of causation and move the guilt to medical staff.
Malchereck and steel
Switching off life support machine doesn’t break chain of causation
