Elements of Criminal Liability - Causation

Question 1

R V White

Answer 1

• Factual causation
• ‘But for’ test
• But for the defendant poisoning his mother she still would have died so there was no factual causation

Question 2

R V Pagett

Answer 2

• Factual causation
  -But for the defendant taking his girlfriend out of the house and using her as a human she would have not died therefore there is factual causation

Question 3

Kimsey

Answer 3

-legal causation
- De minimis principle: D will be criminally responsible for the consequence of his conduct were more than the minimal cause
-‘more than slight or trifling link’

Question 4

Blaue

Answer 4

• Thin skull rule
  -Take your victim as you find them including physical conditions and religious beliefs
• The stabbed wound caused the V’s death even if she did refuse treatment due to religious reasons(Jehovah’s witness)

Question 5

Smith

Answer 5

• Novus Actus Interveniens
• medical treatment
• D was still the operating and substantial cause of death

Question 6

Cheshire

Answer 6

• Novus Actus Interveniens
  -Medical treatment
• D’s act need not be the sole cause or even the main cause of death, provided that his act contributed significantly to the death of the victim
  -V’s death was caused by tracheotomy complications not diagnosed by doctors and not original shot wounds. D was still liablie

Question 7

Jordan

Answer 7

• Novus Actus Intervenies
• Medical treatment
• medical negligence/ poor treatment can break the chain on where it is so independent of D’s acts and in itself so potent in causing death, that…the contribution made by D’s act…are insignificant
• palpably wrong treatment, distinguished and independent for D

Question 8

Holland

Answer 8

• NAI
• Self neglect
• V failed to take care of wound and get medical assistance, gangrene set in and and victim refused treatment
• Did not break chain of causation

Question 9

Roberts

Answer 9

• NAI
  -V’s own actions
  -D made sexual advances towards the V whilst she was a passenger in his car
• V’s actions were seen to be as reasonably foreseeable consequence to his action

Question 10

Williams

Answer 10

• NAI
• V’s own actions contrast with Roberts
• V thought that the D tried to rob him and jumped out of the car.
• V’s actions did break the chain of causation as it was seen as daft and unexpected that no reasonable man could expect to foresee.