EXAM NOTES: Causation and Mens Rea

Question 1

Explain factual causation

Answer 1

• R v White - but for test

- R v Dyson - causing early/premature death satisfies but for test

Question 2

What is the basic rule of legal causation

Answer 2

• D must be ‘an operating and substantial cause’ R v Pagett, R v Smith, R v Cheshire

Question 3

What is an ‘operating’ cause

Answer 3

R v Benge (foreman of railway work which caused a train crash)
- just one of the reasons for death - can be many

Question 4

what is a ‘substantial’ cause?

Answer 4

R v Cato one that is more than slight or trifling

Question 5

When can third party intervention break the chain of causation?

Answer 5

R v Pagett (girlfriend used as human shield)

- where it is “free deliberate and informed”

Question 6

When can medical negligence break the chain of causation?

Answer 6

1) R v Smith - where it is so serious as to make the wound a part of a history; a new cause
2) R v Cheshire - where it is so important that it renders D’s act insignificant

Question 7

What if the victim is particularly vulnerable?

Answer 7

R v Hayward

1) thin skull rule
2) take your victim as you find him

Question 8

When can V’s actions break the chain of causation?

Answer 8

1) R v Mackie if they are unforeseeable by the reasonable man
2) R v Williams & Davis+ R v Roberts- if they are “so daft” no reasonable person could foresee them

Question 9

what can be considered when deciding if V’s actions were “so daft” as to be unforeseeable?

Answer 9

R v Williams & Davis + R v Roberts

1) bear in mind any particular characteristics of the victim
2) make allowances for them acting in the heat of the moment
3) it could be reasonably foreseeable for D’s acts to cause V’s suicide and would therefore not be a NAI

Question 10

What is the rule in refusal of treatment cases?

Answer 10

1) R v Holland tetanus from a cut finger - no NIA because the wound was the cause of death
2) R v Dear - suicide through reopening wounds - no NIA because the wound was the cause of death

Question 11

What is the general rule relating to omissions?

Answer 11

R v WM Smith - no general duty to act

Question 12

What is the process for a conviction through an omission?

Answer 12

1) D is under a legal duty to act
2) D breaches that duty
3) The breach caused the AR
4) (If necessary for the offence) D had the MR
5) The crime can be committed by omission

Question 13

give an example of a legal duty to act

Answer 13

R v Gibbons and Proctor

• Parent owes a legal duty to act to care for their child
• Someone ‘looking after’ a family can voluntarily assume a binding duty of care

Question 14

Give an example of a breach of contractual duty to act

Answer 14

R v Pittwood

Question 15

Give an example of a breach of public duty

Answer 15

R v Dytham - policeman watching someone get kicked to death

Question 16

Give an example of someone creating the dangerous situation

Answer 16

R v Miller - fell asleep holding a fag

Question 17

When might someone have a duty to act?

Answer 17

1) legal duty
2) contractual duty
3) public duty
4) created the situation

Question 18

what is the rule for doctors and omissions?

Answer 18

Airedale trust v Bland - can be lawful for doctors to allow patients to die in some situations

Question 19

What is the general rule for how courts should handle intention?

Answer 19

R v Moloney - give it its normal meaning

Question 20

What is oblique intention?

Answer 20

R v Moloney - special instructions should be given where the:
!) consequence is not D’s direct purpose but rather a side effect that
2) he accepts as a natural consequence of his actions

Question 21

What is the rule for oblique intention?

Answer 21

R v Woollin:

1) Death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty due to D’s actions
2) D appreciated that this was the case

Question 22

What is the general test for recklessness?

Answer 22

R v Cunningham

1) D is aware of the risk
2) D takes the risk anyway

Question 23

What is the alternative test for recklessness and when is it used?

Answer 23

R v G and Another – reckless criminal damage

1) When committing the AR, D was subjectively aware of the risk
2) In the circumstances known to D it was objectively unreasonable for him to take the risk

Question 24

what happens if D tries to shoot U and misses, hitting V?

Answer 24

1) R v Latimer – malice against one person can be transferred from the intended party to the actual party (Tried to hit X with a belt and instead harmed Y)
2) R v Mitchell ¬– transferred malice applies to murder (X was struck and fell on Y, who died)
3) R v Pembilton – need the requisite MR for the crime caused (D had MR to hit someone with a stone, not to break a window)

Question 25

what are the two theories that stretch coincidence of MR and AR?

Answer 25

• continuing act theory

- continuing transaction theory

Question 26

explain what a continuing act is

Answer 26

Fagan v Met Police Commissioner – continuing act theory; the MR just has to happen at some point while the AR is continuing

Question 27

explain what a continuing transaction is?

Answer 27

Thabo Meli – a series of acts constituted one continuing transaction so the MR was just needed at one point in the sequence

• Thought they’d killed V and rolled him off a cliff, where he died of exposure
• R v Le Brun - continues while D is attempting to cover up his crime

Question 28

What if it is unclear which of D’s acts caused the death?

Answer 28

AG Ref (No 4 of 1980) - if it is unclear which of D’s acts caused the AR he must have the MR during all of them
-	D strangled stabbed and cut V

Question 29

how does the defence of mistake work?

Answer 29

R v Bailey – ignorance of the law is no excuse

Question 30

what is the general rule for intoxication?

Answer 30

• intoxication MAY allow D to negate the MR for a crime of specific intent ONLY
• but R v Kingston a drunken intent is still intent

Question 31

Give a definition of intent

Answer 31

Smith & Hogan - ‘direct aim or purpose’