Causation

• What must the defense prove to establish causation?

  The defendant’s actions were the factual cause, the legal cause, and there were no intervening acts.
• What is the 'but for test' in factual causation?

  It determines if the consequence would not have happened 'but for the actions of the defendant.'
• In the case of R v Pagett, what was the outcome regarding the defendant's actions?

  The defendant was guilty of manslaughter as his actions directly led to the girl's death.
• What does legal causation imply about multiple acts contributing to a consequence?

  The defendant can be guilty if his actions were more than a minimal cause of the consequence.
• What is the significance of the term 'de minimis' in legal causation?

  'De minimis' refers to a minimal cause that is not substantial.
• In R v Kimsey, what did the jury need to consider regarding the defendant's conduct?

  The conduct must be more than 'de minimis' to establish legal causation.
• What does R v Hughes clarify about legal causation?

  It states that the act must be a significant or substantial cause among multiple legally effective causes.
• How does the Thin Skull Rule apply to defendants?

  The defendant must take their victim as they find them, regardless of the victim's pre-existing conditions.
• In R v Blaune, why was the defendant found guilty despite the victim's refusal of blood?

  The defendant was guilty because he had to take his victim as he found her.
• What is the concept of intervening acts in causation?

  Intervening acts can break the chain of causation if they are independent and serious.
• In R v Pagett, how did the actions of a third party affect the chain of causation?

  The actions were reasonably foreseeable and did not break the chain.
• What test applies to the victim's own actions in breaking the chain of causation?

  The test is whether the defendant caused the victim to react in a foreseeable way.
• In R v Roberts, why was the defendant still liable for the victim's injuries?

  It was reasonably foreseeable that the victim would try to escape.
• What was the outcome in R v Williams and Davis regarding the victim's actions?

  The defendants were not guilty as the victim's actions were unreasonable and disproportionate to the threat.
• How does medical negligence affect the chain of causation?

  Medical treatment is unlikely to break the chain unless it is independent and potent in causing death.
• In R v Cheshire, what was the court's decision regarding the defendant's liability?

  The defendant was still held liable for the victim's cause of death.
• What was the ruling in R v Jordan regarding the chain of causation?

  The defendant was not guilty because the intervening act broke the chain of causation.
• What are the key elements required to establish causation in law?

  • Factual causation: 'but for' the defendant's actions
  • Legal causation: actions must be more than minimal
  • No intervening acts that break the chain of causation
• What are the implications of the Thin Skull Rule in legal cases?

  • Defendants are liable for the full extent of injuries
  • Victim's pre-existing conditions do not absolve liability
  • Must take the victim as they are found
• What factors determine if an intervening act breaks the chain of causation?

  • Independence from the defendant's actions
  • Seriousness of the intervening act
  • Reasonableness of the victim's response