Causation Q1 Flashcards
Introduction to causation
- It must be proven that Ds actions caused the result.
-Causation is establishing a CAUSAL link between D’s actions and the prohibited
consequence.
Factual Causation
- This is the ‘but for’ test.
- The result would not have happened but for (had it not been for) D’s actions.
- If the result would have happened anyway, D cannot be guilty.
Case for factual causation
White: D put poison into Vs drink to kill her but she died of a heart attack before
she drank it. D could not be guilty of murder because V died regardless of the
poison he put in her drink. It could not be said that but for D putting poison in
the drink, V would not have died.
Legal Causation
- This means D must have contributed to the result in a more than minimal way.
- This is the de minimus test.
Case for legal causation
-Pagett: D used his girlfriend as a human shield while he shot at the police. V was
killed in the crossfire, and D was liable for his death, as his actions were more
than a minimal cause of her being shot.
Chain of causation
What is this?
What are the 3 possible novus actus interveniens?
- When F.C. and L.C. are established, it is known as the chain of causation.
- It must not be broken by a new intervening act (novus actus interveniens).
- Actions of a 3rd party
- Actions of V
- Natural but unpredictable
Actions of a third party
- D could argue a 3rd party (medical staff, passer-by, etc) broke the chain.
- Generally, a 3rd party does not break the chain.
Cases for AO3P
-Cheshire: medical negligence will only break the chain in the most extraordinary
or unusual circumstances.
-Jordan: medical negligence will only break the chain if it is palpably wrong.
- Smith: D stabbed V who received poor medical treatment and died. D was liable
because Vs wounds were the “operating and substantial” cause of death.
Actions of V
- D could argue Vs actions break the chain of causation.
- Generally, actions of V do not break the chain as long as they are reasonable.
Actions of V case
-Roberts: V jumped out of a moving car as she feared what D would do. D was
liable for the injuries because it was reasonable for her to fear D.
Natural but unpredictable
-D could argue a natural but unpredictable event breaks the chain, which may
succeed depending on the circumstances, e.g. extreme weather.
Thin skull rule
-V’s pre-existing medical condition, or religious beliefs, will not break the chain of
causation, even if D is unaware of them.
-This is because D must take V as found.
Case for thin skull rule
-Blaue: D stabbed V who was taken to hospital for treatment. V needed a blood
transfusion but refused on religious beliefs. As her refusal was not unreasonable
she did not break the chain of causation. The thin skull rule applied here.
