Causation: lesson 7 Flashcards
What is causation?
Where consequence must be proved, then prosecution has to show
1) Defendants conduct was the factual cause of that consequence
2) It was the legal cause of that consequence
Define factual cause
- Defendant can only be guilty if the consequence wouldn’t have happened ‘but for’ the defendants conduct
- ‘But for test’ seen in operation in R v Pagett 1983
What happened in R v Pagett 1983?
- Defendant took his pregnant girlfriend by force from her home
- He held her hostage
- When police told him to surrender he came outside with a gun and the girl & opened fire on the officers. Girlfriend was killed by police bullets and the Defendant was found guilty of manslaughter
Which case opposes R v Pagett and why?
White 2010
- Defendant put cyanide in mothers drink to kill her however she died before drinking it from a heart attack
- Not guilty of murder as there’s no factual causation
- Guilty of attempted murder
What did the Supreme Court ours rule in R v Hughes 2013 regarding causation?
Factual causation alone isn’t always enough for liability
1) ‘But for’ cause
2) legally effective cause
What happened in R v Hughes?
- Defendant was driving campervan when he turned the bend a car came towards him swerving on his side of the road & smashed into his van tipping it over
- Other driver died and Defendant was convicted as he had no insurance or a full license.
- Supreme Court quashed conviction as although he was the ‘cause’, it was not a legally effective cause
What is a legal cause?
- There can be multiple causes of consequence, including acts from others
- Defendant is guilty if their conduct was more that a minimal cause
- R v Kimsey 1996 Court of Appeal ruled instead of saying “de minimis” juries can be told defendants conduct must be “more than a slight or trifling link”
What happened in R v Kimsey 1996?
- Defendant was in high speed car race with friend.
- Lost control if vehicle, killing the other driver
- Unclear what led Defendant to lose control
- Judge told jury that the Driving didn’t need to be the principle cause of death as long as they’re sure it was a cause
In what case did the Supreme Court further explain the minimum threshold requirement for legal causation?
R v Hughes 2013
- It need not be the only ot principle cause. It must however be a cause which is more than de minimis
How can the chain of causation be broken?
- An act if 3rd party
- A natural & unpredictable event
Can medical treatment break the chain if causation?
- Unlikely unless it is so independent that the defendants acts are insignificant
- R v Smith 1959
What happened in R v Smith 1959?
- Defendant stabbed his comrade during fight in army barracks
- Victim was taken to receive medical attention & was dropped twice on the way and received negligent medical treatment
- Victim died of a punctured lung & defendant was charged with murder
- Defendant appealed on basis that victim would’ve survived but for the negligence of medics
- Conviction was upheld
How can the Victim break the chain of causation?
- If the victim reacts in foreseeable way then any injury to the victim will be considered to be caused by the defendant
- R v Robert’s 1971
What happened in R v Robert’s 1971?
- After a part Defendant gave victim ride home
- Defendant began making sexual advances which were rejected before he began to take off her coat
- Victim opened the door and jumped out the moving car sustaining injuries as a result
- Defendant was convicted with assult occasioning actual bodily harm and when he appealed he was denied
What is a problem with the law of causation?
What is meant by “ slight and trifling link” is vague and difficult to define. As a result juries can apply different standards in different cases.
