Causation

?
What must causation be established in?
Causation must be established in all RESULT crimes
1 of 30
What must the prosecution be able to show?
The prosecution must be able to show that it was the conduct of the defendant which CAUSED the resulting crime
2 of 30
What are the two types of causation?
Factual
Legal
3 of 30
What must happen for a defendant to be liable?
Both factual and legal causation must be established in order for a defendant to be criminally liable for an offence
4 of 30
Where is the but for test used?
In factual causation
5 of 30
What is the 'but for' test ?
it is where but for the actions of the defendant the result would not have occurred, if the result would have occurred irrespective of the defendants actions the defendant is not liable
6 of 30
What was the case of R v White 1910?
How was the 'but for' test established?
Where Mrs Whites son put arsenic in her bed time milk and she died, however the autopsy showed she actually died because of a heart attack.
This means that the but for test is applied because she was still going to die of a heart-attack so the poison didn
7 of 30
What does legal causation consist of?
1. There must be a culpable act
2. The cause need not be the only cause but it must be more than a minimal cause
3. The defendant must take his victim as he finds him
4. There must be no novus actus interveniens
8 of 30
What is novus actus interveniens?
new intervening act which breaks the chain of causation
9 of 30
What is a culpable act?
the action which caused the result must be one which is culpable such as attracting some sort of condemnation
Actions which are not in any way blameworthy will not attract liability
10 of 30
What is the case of R v Dalloway 1847?
culpable act - legal causation
Was he liable?
He was driving a horse and cart but he was not holding the reigns
Child ran into the road and got crushed by wheels
Dalloway was NOT LIABLE as even if he was holding the reigns he would not have been able to stop in time
11 of 30
What is multiple causes?
this is where there is more than one cause, the approach is that the act or omission need not be the sole cause but it must be more than the minimal cause to incur liability
12 of 30
What was the case of R v Benge 1865?
Multiple causes - legal causation
Who was liable?
Work manager mis-read timetable and sent workers onto the tracks, the lookout person was stood in wrong place did not see the workers, the train driver was looking wrong way, the worker died
As more than one cause others can be lieable as well
13 of 30
The Eggshell Skull Rule
where the victim of a crime is particulary vulnerable, e.g. because of a pre-exisiting medical condition, the defendant is liable for the full extent of the injuries even if the injuries would not have been so severe in a reasonable person with formal for
14 of 30
What was the case of Haywood 1908?
Who was liable?
Mr Haywood ran out of house chasing Mrs Haywood raising his fists and shouting, Mrs Haywood collapsed and died, she was suffering from a rare thyroid condition

Mr Haywood was liable for death, he did not know about condition
15 of 30
Where else does the eggshell rule apply?
Eggshell skull rule also applies where the victim has refused medical treatment
16 of 30
What happened in the case of Holland 1841?
Who was liable?
Where victim refused medical treatment...
D and V got into a fight, V sustained a small cut, he did not take care of the wound so it got infected, by the time he sought medical assistance gang green had set in, advised to amputate, he didn't get it amputated and he died
Defendant was liable for
17 of 30
What happened in the case of Blau 1975?
Who was liable?
Where victim refuses medical treatment...
Defendant stabbed victim, she was jehovah's witness so could not accept blood transfusion, she refused blood transfusion that would have saved her life, she died

Blau was liable for her death (murder)
18 of 30
What is novus actus interveniens?
where the defendant's acts or omissions is one in a chain of events, where the chain of events is broken relieving the defendant of liability or whether the chain remains in tact leaving the defendant liable
19 of 30
What three tests are applied in novus actus interveniens?
1. where the new act is that of a victim
2. where the new act is that of a third party
3. where there has been medical intervention
20 of 30
What is act of the victim?
What cases does it include?
it is where the intervening act is that of the victim themselves the test applied is whether the victim acted reasonably and proportionately

Roberts 1971
Williams 1992
R v Chan-Fook 1994
21 of 30
What happens in Roberts 1971?
Who is held reliable according to the act of the victim?
the defendant was a lorry driver, he picked up a female hitch hiker, during the course of the journey the defendant placed his hand on her leg, in response to this she jumped out of the lorry and was injured

Lorry driver was responsible for her injuries
22 of 30
What happens in Williams 1992?
Who was held responsible according to the act of the victim?
the victim had hitched a lift to Glastonbury festival, during the course of the journey one of the occupants was attempting to rob his wallet, he car was moving fast at the time he jumped and he was killed

The mans actions were responsible and he should
23 of 30
What happens in R v Chan-Fook 1994?
Who was held responsible according to the act of the victim?
the victim had been locked in an upstairs room by the defendant, the defendant accused him of stealing his fiancés engagement ring, he stated he would beat him up when he returned, the victim jumped out of the window and broke his leg

the man was liable
24 of 30
what is the act of the third party?
where the new intervening act is that of a third party the test is whether the acts of the third party were foreseeable
25 of 30
What is the case of R v Pagett 1983?
Who was responsible?
To do with the act of the third party...
the defendant was in serious trouble with the police, armed police arrived at his girlfriends house to arrest him, the defendant dragged his pregnant girlfriend in front of himself to use as a shield, she was killed by a bullet fired by the police

the d
26 of 30
What is medical treatment?
the court has not adopted a consistent approach to medical treatment
27 of 30
What happened in the case of R v Jordan 1956?
Who was liable?
To do with medical treatment...
the D stabbed the victim, the victim was taken to hospital where he was given a drug which he showed an allergic reaction, drug was withdrawn, another doctor came on shift and gave him another dose, he had also been given excess liquids which caused him p
28 of 30
What happened in the case of R v Smith 1959?
Who was liable?
to do with medical treatment...
the V and D were soldiers, the V was stabbed by the D in a barrack room fighting, the V was then dropped twice while carrying him to get medical treatment, the doctors failed to diagnose that the knife had punctured his lung, he recieved 'thoroughly bad t
29 of 30
What happened in the case of R v Cheshire 1991?
Who was liable?
To do with medical treatment...
the defendant shot the victim in the stomach and the leg in a fish and chip shop, the victim was taken to hospital where he developed breathing difficulties, he was given a tracheotomy, he died two months later from complications arising from tracheotomy
30 of 30

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

What must the prosecution be able to show?

Back

The prosecution must be able to show that it was the conduct of the defendant which CAUSED the resulting crime

Card 3

Front

What are the two types of causation?

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

What must happen for a defendant to be liable?

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

Where is the but for test used?

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

AR
See all Law resources »See all Causation - legal and factual resources »