Criminal Law: Causation

• What are the two distinct types of causation?

  Actus reus from a guilty act or from conduct that is a guilty act.
• What does the actus reus of a result crime specify?

  It specifies the causing of a particular criminal result as the guilty act.
• What is required for result crimes in relation to causation?

  You need to explain and apply the principles of causation after discussing Actus Reus.
• What does the actus reus of a conduct crime specify?

  It specifies the undertaking of a particular behavior or action as the guilty act.
• Is it necessary to prove a particular result occurred for conduct crimes?

  No, it is not necessary to prove that any particular result occurred.
• What are examples of conduct crimes?

  • Smoking in a public place
  • Theft
  • Speeding
  • Being drunk on a public highway
• What are result crimes defined by?

  Result crimes are defined by actions that have led to a specific result.
• What must the prosecution show in a result crime?

  The prosecution must show that the defendant's conduct was the factual and legal cause of the consequence.
• What is the actus reus of a result crime?

  It specifies the causing of a particular criminal result as the guilty act.
• What is the chain of causation?

  The chain of causation is the link between the defendant's actions and their criminal consequence.
• What happens if there is no causation in a crime?

  If there is no causation, there is no crime.
• What is factual causation?

  Factual causation requires the defendant to have caused the outcome as a fact.
• What is the 'but for' test?

  The 'but for' test asks if the result would have happened but for the defendant's actions.
• In the case of Pagett (1983), what was the outcome regarding factual causation?

  Factual causation was proved as the defendant's actions put the victim at risk.
• In the case of White (1910), what was the outcome regarding factual causation?

  Factual causation was not proved as the victim died from a heart attack before the poison was ingested.
• What is legal causation?

  Legal causation requires that the defendant's actions were an operating cause of the outcome.
• What does "more than the minimal cause" mean in legal causation?

  It means there must be more than a slight or trifling link between action and consequence.
• In R v Cheshire (1991), what did the court hold regarding legal causation?

  The court held that the accused's acts need not be the sole cause of death, just that they contributed significantly.
• In R v Hughes (2013), what was required to establish legal causation?

  There needed to be something wrong with the driving to say that he was more than the minimal cause of death.
• What is the thin-skull rule in causation?

  The thin-skull rule means the defendant must take the victim as he finds them, including their beliefs.
• In R v Blaue (1975), what was the outcome regarding the thin-skull rule?

  The defendant was guilty as he had to take the victim as he found her, including her refusal for a blood transfusion.
• What does the thin-skull rule imply about the extent of harm suffered by a victim?

  The defendant is liable for the full extent of the injuries, even if they are more severe due to a pre-existing condition.
• What is the significance of the "novus actus interveniens" in legal causation?

  It refers to a new act intervening that can break the chain of causation.
• What must be proven for a defendant to be found to have the actus reus?

  Both factual and legal causation must be proven.
• What happened to the victim in Blaue (1975)?

  The victim was stabbed and refused a blood transfusion.
• Why did the victim refuse the blood transfusion in Blaue (1975)?

  She refused it because she was a Jehovah's Witness.
• What is the causation principle in law?

  • The defendant must take the victim as they find them.
  • This includes the victim's physical state and beliefs.
  • The defendant is liable for the full extent of the injuries.
• What argument did Mr. Blaue make regarding his responsibility for the victim's death?

  He argued that her refusal of the transfusion broke the chain of causation.
• How does the thin skull rule apply to pre-existing conditions?

  It means the defendant is liable for the full extent of harm suffered by the victim.
• What is the "thin skull rule" in legal terms?

  The thin skull rule states that a defendant must take the victim as they find them.
• Why do courts apply the thin skull rule?

  To avoid placing fault on the victim for conditions they cannot control.
• What is an intervening act in legal terms?

  An intervening act is an event that breaks the chain of causation.
• What is the test for an intervening act to break the chain of causation?

  The act must be independent and unforeseeable in relation to the defendant's actions.
• What are the three types of intervening acts that can break the chain of causation?

  1. An act of a third party (often medical)
  2. The victim’s own actions
  3. A natural but unpredictable event (acts of God)
• In the case of medical intervention, what must be established to determine if the chain of causation is broken?

  The medical treatment must be palpably wrong or independent of the defendant's actions.
• What was the outcome of Jordan (1956) regarding medical intervention?

  The chain of causation was broken because the treatment was palpably wrong.
• In Smith (1959), why was the defendant still liable for the victim's death?

  Because the stabbing was still the operating and substantial cause of death.
• What was the significance of the case Cheshire (1991) regarding medical complications?

  The gunshot wounds were still considered the substantial cause of death despite complications.
• What is the legal stance on switching off a life support machine as seen in Malcherek (1981)?

  The defendant's actions did not break the chain of causation as they allowed nature to take its course.
• How can a victim's own actions break the chain of causation?

  If the actions are not reasonably foreseeable, they can break the chain.