Factual and Legal causation

Question 1

What must be proven for causation?

Answer 1

An unbroken chain of causation between D’s voluntary act and the consequence

Question 2

Factual causation

Answer 2

D cannot be found guilty unless the consequence wouldn’t have happened ‘but for’ their conduct

Question 3

D cannot be found guilty unless the consequence wouldn’t have happened ‘but for’ their conduct

Answer 3

Factual causation

Question 4

Factual causation cases

Answer 4

• Pagett 1983
• White 1910

Question 5

• Pagett 1983
• White 1910

Answer 5

Factual causation

Question 6

The 3 tests of legal causation

Answer 6

• foreseeability
• operating and substantial
• the thin skull rule

Question 7

• foreseeability
• operating and substantial
• the thin skull rule

Answer 7

The 3 tests of legal causation

Question 8

What is the thin skull rule?

Answer 8

D must take V as they find them

Question 9

D must take V as they find them

Answer 9

The thin skull rule

Question 10

What does the thin skull rule mean?

Answer 10

Any particular vulnerabilities of the victim, such as religious beliefs or medical conditions, cannot break the chain of causation

Question 11

Thin skull rule case

Answer 11

Blaue 1975

Question 12

Blaue 1975

Answer 12

Thin skull rule case

Question 13

The actions of doctors in the delivery of medical treatment cannot break the chain of causation unless…

Answer 13

it is so potent and independent that it renders D’s actions insignificant

Question 14

Can the actions of doctors in the delivery of medical treatment break the chain of causation?

Answer 14

No, unless it is so potent and independent that it renders D’s actions insignificant

Question 15

Operating and substantial cause

Answer 15

D’s conduct must have made a ‘significant contribution’ to the consequence

Question 16

D’s conduct must have made a ‘significant contribution’ to the consequence

Answer 16

Operating and substantial cause

Question 17

If there was an intervening act, D must have foreseen what to continue the chain of causation?

Answer 17

The intervening act

Question 18

If the V’s reaction to D’s conduct is foreseeable and reasonable, then the D is guilty for any harm sustained by V in this response

Answer 18

• Roberts 1971
• Williams 1992

Question 19

• Roberts 1971
• Williams 1992

Answer 19

If the V’s reaction to the D’s conduct is foreseeable, reasonable and natural, then the D is guilty for any harm sustained by V in this response

Question 20

In what case was V’s reaction to D’s actions NOT foreseeable, reasonable and natural?

Answer 20

Williams 1992

Question 21

In what case was V’s reaction to D’s actions foreseeable, reasonable and natural?

Answer 21

Roberts 1971

Question 22

Novus actus interveniens

Answer 22

• Victim’s own actions
• Medical treatment
• Actions of a third party

Question 23

• Victim’s own actions
• Medical treatment
• Actions of a third party

Answer 23

Novus actus interveniens

Question 24

Novus actus interveniens:
V’s own actions

Answer 24

Williams 1992

Question 25

Novus actus interveniens:
Medical treatment

Answer 25

Jordan 1956

Question 26

Jordan 1956

Answer 26

Novus actus interveniens:
Medical treatment

Question 27

Case where medical treatment broke the chain of causation

Answer 27

Jordan 1956

Question 28

Case where medical treatment did not break the chain of causation

Answer 28

Smith 1959

Question 29

Smith 1959

Answer 29

Medical treatment did not break the chain of causation