causation

• what's causation

  where a consequence must be proved
• what does prosecution have to show

  that d's conduct was the factual cause of the consequence and that d's conduct was in law the cause of that consequence
• factual causation

  d is only guilty if the consequence would not have happened 'but for' the defendants conduct (r v white)
• legal caution

  thin skill rule, chain of causation
• thin skull rule

  d must take v as he finds them
• thin skull rule case

  blaue 1975
• chain of causation


  the link between the act and the consequence must remain unbroken
• things that can break the chain of causation

  acts of a third party, victims own act, natural but unpredictable event
• act of a third party-medical treatment


  unlikely to break the chain unless it in itself is 'so potent in causing the death' and the operating or substantial cause of the injuries
• victims own act


  if the defendant causes the victim to react in a foreseeable way then any injury will likely be caused by d - Roberts 1971
• Williams 1972


  if the victims reaction is unreasonable them this may break the chain of causation
• pagett 1983

  she would not have died' but for' him using her as a shield in the shoot out
• white 1910


  the defendant was not the factual cause of her death
• blaue 1975


  defendant was guilty as he had to take his victim as he found her
• smith 1959


  original attacker was still guilty as the stab wound was the overhwhelming cause of death, significant and operative cause
• Cheshire 1991


  even though the original wounds were no longer life threatening, the defendant was still held liable for his death
• Jordan 1956

  actions of doctor held to be an intervening act which caused the death, d was not guilty of murder
• Roberts 1971 


  d liable for injuries as vs reactions were reasonably foreseeable to the threat
• williams 1992


  vs actions not proportionate to the threat, injury to v was not caused by the defendant