criminal- causation

Question 1

how is causation established

Answer 1

. factual causation + legal causation + no intervening act

Question 2

factual causation

Answer 2

. would the consequence have happened but for the actin of the D?
. but for test- R v White

Question 3

legal causation

Answer 3

. D must be the substantial + operative cause of the consequence- R v Smith, R v Cheshire
. D must be more than the minimal cause (deminimus rule)- R v Kimsey

Question 4

intervening acts

Answer 4

. acts of third parties
. actions of the V
. unforeseen acts of the V

Question 5

can break the chain

Answer 5

. palpably wrong medical treatment- an extremely high threshold- R v Jordan
. daft actions- where D’s acts are so daft + unexpected, no reasonable person could have foreseen them- R v Roberts; this has to be proportionate to the threat- R v Williams and Davies
. unforeseeable acts of nature
. voluntary injection of drugs- Kennedy no.2

Question 6

will not break the chain

Answer 6

. general medical treatment- R v Cheshire
. victim self-neglect- R v Dear; this can potentially go to suicide- R v Wallace
. turning off life support machine- Steele, Airedale NHS Trust v Bland

Question 7

thin skull rule

Answer 7

. the D must take the V as they find them; pre-existing conditions of V will not break the chain of causation- R v Blaue