causation

• What are the elements of actus reus?


  Conduct, circumstances, and result
• What does 'conduct' refer to in the context of actus reus?


  D's physical act or lack of action (omission)
• Do all criminal offences require a result to be proved?


  No, some offences only require conduct and circumstances
• Give an example of an offence that requires specific conduct.

  Rape, which requires penile penetration
• What is the conduct element for murder?


  Any conduct that causes the unlawful killing of a person
• What is a positive act in terms of conduct?


  A conduct element satisfied easily, such as a punch
• What are 'state of affairs' crimes?


  Crimes defined by the situation rather than conduct
• What is the actus reus for perjury?


  Making a statement, whether true or false, on oath in a judicial proceeding
• Is it necessary to prove that a false statement made in perjury affected the trial's outcome?


  No, it is not necessary to prove that
• What do circumstances refer to in actus reus?


  Surrounding facts not performed or caused by D's actions
• What is the conduct element in criminal damage?


  Causing damage to property belonging to another
• What is the circumstance element in rape?


  Lack of consent from the victim
• Why is the lack of consent a crucial circumstance element in sexual offences?


  It must be proved for the offence of rape
• What is the result element in murder?


  The unlawful killing of a human being
• What distinguishes conduct crimes from result crimes?


  Conduct crimes do not require a result; result crimes do
• What is an example of a conduct crime?


  Perjury
• What is the significance of causation in result crimes?


  Causation determines whether D is responsible for the result
• What is the 'but for' test in factual causation?


  It determines if the result would have occurred but for D's conduct
• In R v White, why was D not convicted of murder?


  His act of poisoning did not lead to the mother's death
• What does it mean if D's conduct is a factual cause of the result?


  It means D's conduct contributed to the result
• What was the outcome of Benge (1865) regarding D's liability?


  D was guilty of gross negligence manslaughter
• In Pagett (1983), why was D convicted of manslaughter?


  D's actions significantly contributed to the girlfriend's death
• What is legal causation?

  It assesses if D's actions were sufficient to cause the result
• What must be proven for legal causation to be established?

  There must be a link between D's act and the prohibited consequence
• What does the de minimis principle state regarding D's conduct?


  D's conduct must be more than minimal to establish causation
• What is required for D's conduct to be considered blameworthy?


  D's conduct must be central to the causation of the result
• In Dalloway (1847), why was D found not guilty of gross negligence manslaughter?


  D could not have stopped in time to save the victim
• What must D's conduct be at the time it comes about?

  D's conduct must be a significant cause of the result
• What is a novus actus interveniens?


  An intervening act that breaks the chain of causation
• How do acts of the victim affect the chain of causation?


  Victim's actions can break the chain if they are unforeseeable
• What principle was established in Roberts (1972) regarding the victim's actions?


  Victim's foreseeable reactions do not break the causal chain
• What are the categories of offences in relation to actus reus?


  • Conduct crimes:
  • AR = act/omission
  • Consequences irrelevant
  • Examples: Perjury, driving whilst disqualified
  • Result crimes:
  • D's conduct must produce a particular result
  • AR complete when D performs conduct in certain circumstances, causing a certain result
  • Examples: Murder
• What are the key elements of causation in criminal law?


  1. Factual causation: 'but for' test
  2. Legal causation:

  • D's actions must be substantial enough to cause the result
  • Must not be broken by novus actus interveniens

  1. D's conduct must be blameworthy
• What are the principles regarding novus actus interveniens?


  1. Acts of Victim:

  • Foreseeable actions do not break the chain
  • 'Daft' actions break the chain

  1. D's conduct must remain a significant cause of the result
• What is the factual cause of V's death in relation to D's conduct?


  D's conduct is the factual cause because 'but for' the supply of the drug, V would not have died.
• How did D's conduct play a role in V's death?


  D's conduct played a substantial role by obtaining the drug for V.
• What effect did V's self-injection of the drug have on the chain of causation?


  V's self-injection broke the chain of causation between D's conduct and her death.
• What legal responsibility does V have for her death after self-injecting the drug?


  V alone becomes legally responsible for the results due to her free and voluntary choice to self-inject.
• What is the legal conclusion regarding D's responsibility for V's death?


  D is not the legal cause of V's death.
• What are the three main principles regarding the acts of the victim that can break the chain of causation?


  1. Foreseeability of V's acts
  2. Voluntariness of V's acts
  3. Unique vulnerabilities of V