Lecture 3 - Causation Flashcards
What are the two different types of causation
Factual causation and legal causation. Factual causation acts as an exclusionary rule i.e it seeks to rule out things which cannot be a logical cause of an event whereas legal causation acts as an inclusionary rule seeking to select the most appropriate cause from all the factual causes
What is the main principle the courts use for factual causation ?
The but for test which states that but for the defendants actions the result would not have occured this was established in the R v White case
What is the significance of the R v Dyson case
The R v Dyson case introduces the principle of acceleration which states that if a defendants actions caused the victim to die sooner than expected they are still guilty of murder
What is the significance of the R v Adams case
This case introduces the principle of the doctrine of double effect. This sets out when it is okay to perform an action in pursuit of a good end with the knowledge that it will also bring about a bad result
What are the 4 tests the courts use to find the most appropriate cause
The operating and substantial cause test - which states that the defendants actions must be a significant cause of the result
The natural consequence test - This is where it is asked whether the defendant foresaw the consequence as a natural consequence of their actions
The reasonable foresight of consequence test - which states that if the consequence of an act could be foreseen by a reasonable man then they are not too remote
The novus actus interveniens test - which states that an independent event occured after the wrongdoing and has either caused or contributed to the death of the victim
What is the thin skull rule and what case sets this out
a rule stating that the defendant is liable for the full extent of harm to the claimant even if it is more significant than expected as shown in the R v Blaue case
what is the significane of R v Roberts
it establishes the daft test which is the idea that the chain of causation would only be broken if the defendant did something so unreasonable that no reasonable man couldve foreseen it
What is the significance of the R v Cheshire case
this case established that the defendants act needs not be the sole cause or even the main cause of death as long as it contributed significantly to his death
what is the significance of the Hart case
It sets out the rule for acts of nature saying that the main test is whether or not the natural event was reasonably foreseeable
