Causation

• What must the prosecution show in a criminal law case regarding causation?


  An unbroken and direct chain of causation
• Why is it important to establish causation before considering D's mens rea?


  If D hasn’t caused the crime, their thoughts do not matter
• What are the three tests for causation in criminal law?


  1. Factual (but-for test)
  2. Legal (de minimus rule)
  3. Novus actus interveniens
• What does the 'but-for test' assess in factual causation?


  It assesses whether the outcome would have happened but for D's conduct
• In R v Pagett (1983), what was the outcome of the but-for test?


  V would not have died but for D using her as a shield
• What happens if the consequence would have happened anyway in terms of liability?


  D bears no responsibility for the outcome
• In R v White (1910), why was D not guilty of murder?


  V would have died anyway from heart failure
• What is the principle of legal causation in criminal law?


  Legal causation is satisfied if D is the sole cause of the outcome
• What does the 'de minimus rule' allow in legal causation?


  It allows for more than one contributing act
• In R v Pagett (1983), how was D's conduct viewed in relation to V's death?


  D's conduct was more than a minimal cause of V's death
• In R v Kimsey (1996), what did the jury need to determine about D's driving?


  D's driving needed to be more than a slight or trifling link to the death
• What is the acceleration principle in legal causation?


  D's act may be a cause if it accelerated V's death
• In R v Adams (1957), why was Dr Adams acquitted of murder?


  His primary purpose was to relieve pain, not to cause death
• What does the Thin Skull Rule state in criminal law?


  D must take their victim as they find them
• In R v Blaue (1975), why was D still guilty despite V's refusal of treatment?


  D had to take his victim as he found her
• What is a novus actus interveniens?


  An intervening act that may break the chain of causation
• What can break the chain of causation?


  Actions of a third party, actions of the victim, or an unforeseeable natural event
• What must an intervening act be to break the chain of causation?


  It must be sufficiently independent and serious
• In R v Smith (1959), did the poor medical treatment break the chain of causation?


  No, D was still regarded as the cause of death
• In R v Cheshire (1991), what was the court's ruling regarding D's responsibility?


  D was still criminally responsible despite negligent medical treatment
• What did the court state about the original wound in R v Cheshire (1991)?


  The original wound must still be an active and substantial cause at the time of death
• What is the significance of the case R v Jordan (1956) in terms of causation?


  It explores the limits of causation and the impact of medical treatment
• What is the significance of the case R v Cheshire [1991] CA regarding causation?


  It established that D can still be criminally responsible even if treatment was below standard
• What must D's act do to be held responsible for death according to R v Cheshire?


  D's act must contribute significantly to the death
• What did Beldam LJ state about negligent treatment in R v Cheshire?


  Negligent treatment does not exclude the responsibility of the accused unless it is independent and potent
• What was the outcome of R v Jordan [1956] regarding causation?


  The CA found the actions of the second doctor to be a sufficiently serious intervening act
• How did the court view the actions of the second doctor in R v Jordan?


  The court viewed the actions as palpably wrong and independent of D's acts
• Does switching off a life support machine break the chain of causation if the V is brain dead?


  No, it does not break the chain because V is already legally dead
• What was the outcome of R v Malcherek and Steel regarding life support machines?


  Turning off life support does not break the chain of causation
• What constitutes a non-actus interveniens according to R v Kennedy [2007]?


  If V does a voluntary action, it will amount to a NAI
• How does R v Roberts [1971] relate to V's actions breaking the chain of causation?


  If V acts in an objectively foreseeable way, it will not break the chain
• What did the court conclude in R v Holland [1841] regarding victim neglect?


  Victim neglect is a possible NAI but only in rare instances
• What was the outcome of R v Dear [1996] regarding victim actions?


  The focus should be on D's initial cause of the injury
• What was the ruling in R v Hart [1986] regarding natural events?


  The tide coming in did not break the chain of causation
• What must a natural event do to break the chain of causation?


  It must be sufficiently unpredictable and unforeseeable
• What is the 'but for' test for causation?


  • A test to determine if the result would have occurred 'but for' the defendant's actions.
  • If the result would not have happened without the defendant's conduct, they may be liable.
• What are the elements of causation in law?

  1. Factual Causation

  • Determined by the 'but for' test.

  1. Legal Causation

  • Requires D's contribution to be more than minimal.

  1. Novus Actus Interveniens

  • Intervening acts that may break the chain of causation.
• What are the key cases related to causation?

  • R v White: Did not satisfy the factual cause test.
  • R v Pagett: Satisfied the factual cause test.
  • R v Kimsey: Considered D's role as a cause.
  • R v Adams: Discussed the acceleration principle.
  • R v Blaue: Established the thin skull rule.
• What are the implications of medical treatment on causation?


  • Medical treatment can break the chain of causation if it is negligent and independent.
  • Cases like R v Jordan illustrate when treatment is palpably wrong.
  • Cases like R v Smith and R v Cheshire show when treatment does not break the chain.
• What is the position regarding victim actions and causation?

  • Victim's voluntary actions can break the chain (R v Kennedy).
  • If the victim's actions are foreseeable in response to D's conduct, it does not break the chain (R v Roberts).
  • Courts focus on D's actions in cases of victim neglect (R v Holland).