Causation
- Created by: Hayley Petts
- Created on: 21-05-14 09:08
View mindmap
- Causation
- Prosecution has to show
- D's conduct was the factual cause of that consequence
- it was the legal cause of that consequence
- there was no intervening act which broke the chain of causation
- Factual Cause
- D can only be guilty if the consequence would not have happened 'but for' D's conduct
- Pagett (1983) - used pregnant gf as shield police shot and killed gf
- guilty as gf would not have died 'but for' him using her as a shield in the shoot-out
- White (1910) - poison in mother's drink
- mother died of heart attack before she could drink it - D not factual cause
- Legal Cause
- rule = D can be guilty if his conduct is more than a 'minimal' cause
- need not be substantial
- Kimsey (1996) - lost control in high speed car chase, killing other driver
- acceptable to tell jury it must be 'more than a slight or trifling link'
- D's acts sufficient cause - even though not sole cause as other driver also speeding
- 'thin skull' rule
- D must take V as he finds him
- if V has something unusual about physical or mental state which makes injury more seroius - then D will be liable for more serious inujry
- Blaue (1975) - stabbed woman who refused to have blood transfusion
- guilty of murder as take victim as you find them
- rule = D can be guilty if his conduct is more than a 'minimal' cause
- Intervening Acts
- must be a direct link from D's conduct to consequence
- chain of causation can be broken by
- third party act
- victim's own nature
- natural but unpredictable event
- medical treatment
- unlikely to break chain unless so independent of D's acts
- Smith (1959) - received poor medical treatment after being stabbed by another soldier
- D liable for murder as stab wound operational and substantial cause of death
- Chesire (1991) - V died of complications from tracheotomy- wounds had virtually healed
- D liable as act contributed significantly towards death of V
- Jordan (1956) - D given large dose of drugs which was known he was allergic to after receiving treatment for being stabbed.
- Broke chain of causation - doctor's conduct 'palpably wrong'
- Malcherek (1981) - stabbed wife who was put on life support machine but tests showed she was 'brain dead'
- switching off life support machine does not break chain of causation
- Victim's own act
- Roberts (1971) - picked up female hitchhiker who jumped out of car thinking D was going to grab her
- 'but for' cause of injuries and convicted under s47 OAPA 1861
- if D causes V to react in a foreseeable way then any injury can be considered to be caused by D
- if victim's reaction is unreasonable this make break chain of causation
- Williams (1992) - hitch-hiker jumped for D's car and died from head injuries
- CA said act had to be foreseeable and also had to be in proportion to threat
- Roberts (1971) - picked up female hitchhiker who jumped out of car thinking D was going to grab her
- Prosecution has to show
Comments
No comments have yet been made