Causation

• Factual cause: - the basic question 'But for the defendant's conduct, would the harm or result have occurred?'

  - If the defendant had not committed their conduct would the result have occurred
• Legal Causation: - If factual causation exists then legal causation considers if it is fair or just to hold the defendant legally responsible for the harm

  - It typically looks at if it was foreseeable that the harm happened or if there was a break in the chain of causation
• R v. White FACTUAL CAUSATION: - Case Facts: The defendant, White, attempted to poison his mother by putting cyanide in her drink to inherit her wealth. However, she died of a heart attack before consuming the poisoned drink.

  - Judgment: White was not guilty of murder as the poison did not cause his mother's death. However, he was found guilty of attempted murder because his intent was to kill her.

  - Principle Established: This case highlights the "but for" test in causation: but for White's actions, the death would have occurred anyway, so factual causation for murder was not satisfied.
• Legal Causation Key Issues: - Harm was a natural consequence of the defendant's actions

  - Harm was remote from the defendant's conduct

  - whether there was an interviewing act (Novus actus interveins) that caused harm instead of D's actions
• R v. Smith LEGAL CAUSATION: - Case Facts: During a fight between soldiers, the defendant, Smith, stabbed another soldier. The injured soldier was dropped twice while being carried to the medical station and later received poor medical treatment, which failed to diagnose and treat his injury properly.

  - Judgment: Smith was found guilty of murder. The court ruled that the original injury caused by Smith was still a substantial and operative cause of the victim's death, despite the poor medical treatment.

  - Principle Established: This case confirms that poor medical treatment does not break the chain of causation if the original wound remains a significant cause of death.
• Substantial cause: - It must be the defendant's conduct that was the main result of the V's harm and other factors do not play as significant roles.
• R v. Pagett LEGAL CAUSATION: - Case Facts: The defendant, Pagett, used his pregnant girlfriend as a human shield while firing at armed police officers. The police returned fire, unintentionally killing the girlfriend.

  - Legal Issue: The court had to determine whether Pagett was legally responsible for her death, given that the fatal shot came from the police.

  - Judgment: Pagett was found guilty of manslaughter. The court held that his actions caused the death because the police officers' response was a foreseeable reaction to his use of the victim as a shield. because if it wasn't for D's actions the V would be alive

  - Principle Established: This case illustrates legal causation—an act by a third party (e.g., police) does not break the chain of causation if it is a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's actions.
• Multiple causes: - There may be more than one person contributing to the act

  - But D can still be guilty even if there is other people causing the crime.

  - Like seen in R v. Kimsey where both drivers were driving at high speeds causing the accident
• The 'thin-skull' rule: - 'Take the victim as you find them'

  - The example used is that someone with a 'thin-skull' if shot, will suffer a more serious injury than a normal skull. However, you would still have then intention to shot that person and so regardless of their skull density you are guilty

  - This could be other things like medical and mental issues or religion
• R v Blaue THIN-SKULL RULE: - Case Facts: The defendant, Blaue, stabbed a young woman multiple times. She refused a life-saving blood transfusion because of her religious beliefs as a Jehovah's Witness, and subsequently died.

  - Legal Issue: The court had to decide whether Blaue was legally responsible for her death, despite her refusal of treatment.

  - Judgment: Blaue was convicted of manslaughter. The court ruled that her refusal of medical treatment did not break the chain of causation, as Blaue's actions were the operating and substantial cause of death.

  - Principle Established: This case establishes the "thin skull rule", which means a defendant must take their victim as they find them, including their physical and religious characteristics.
• Interviewing acts (Novus Actus Interveiens): - In some cases, something happens which separates the D's acts from guilt

  - This means that something happened which broke the chain of causation

  - The chain of causation can be broken by: an act of a third party, a victim act, a natural but unpredictable event

  - In order for the chain of causation to break the consequence of the crime must be sufficiently independent to the D and the third party intervening must be also sufficiently independent
• R v. Jordan BREAK IN CHAIN OF CAUSATION: - Case Facts: The defendant, Jordan, stabbed the victim, who was taken to the hospital and treated. But before going to hospital, his wounds were already healing. The victim died after being given an antibiotic he was allergic to and receiving excessive intravenous fluids, which caused complications.

  - Judgment: Jordan was found not guilty of murder. The court ruled that the medical treatment was "palpably wrong" and sufficiently independent of the stab wound to break the chain of causation.

  - Principle Established: This case illustrates that grossly negligent medical treatment can break the chain of causation, making the initial injury no longer the substantial and operative cause of death.
• Medical treatment: - Medical treatment only breaks the chain of causation if dependent to the D's actions
• R v. Cheshire MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE: - Case Facts: The defendant, Cheshire, shot the victim, who was treated in the hospital and developed complications from a tracheotomy (a breathing tube). The victim died due to these complications, even though the initial gunshot wounds were healing.

  - Legal Issue: The court had to determine whether the medical complications broke the chain of causation or if Cheshire's actions remained the substantial cause of death.

  - Judgment: Cheshire was found guilty of murder. The court ruled that the chain of causation was not broken, as the defendant's actions significantly contributed to the victim's death.

  - Principle Established: This case confirms that medical negligence will not break the chain of causation unless it is so independent and potent that the original injury is no longer a substantial and operative cause of death.
• R v. Malcherek MEDICAL TREAMENT: - Case Facts: The defendant, Malcherek, stabbed his wife, who was taken to the hospital and placed on life support. The doctors later switched off the life support machine after determining she was brain dead. Malcherek argued that turning off the machine broke the chain of causation.

  - Legal Issue: The court had to decide whether switching off the life support machine broke the chain of causation between Malcherek's actions and the victim's death.

  - Judgment: Malcherek was found guilty of murder. The court ruled that turning off life support did not break the chain of causation, as the victim's brain death was caused by the defendant's actions.

  - Principle Established: This case confirms that switching off a life support machine does not break the chain of causation if the defendant's actions led to the victim's brain death.
• Victims own actions: - If the Vs actions was reasonably foreseeable the chain of causation will remain unbroken

  - If Vs actions were not reasonably foreseeable and "daft" then the chain of causation is broken
• Intervening causes: - Acts of nature/Acts of God - e.g. earthquakes or floods that break the chain of causation

  - Acts of third parties

  - victims own actions

  - Medical treatment
• R v. Roberts REASONABLE ACTIONS: - Case Facts: The defendant, Roberts, made unwanted sexual advances toward a woman while driving her in his car. Fearing for her safety, the victim jumped out of the moving car, sustaining injuries.

  - Legal Issue: The court had to decide whether Roberts was liable for the victim's injuries or if her actions broke the chain of causation.

  - Judgment: Roberts was found guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH). The victim's actions were deemed a foreseeable reaction to the defendant's behavior and thus did not break the chain of causation.

  - Principle Established: This case highlights the "daftness test", where the victim's actions must be reasonably foreseeable. If the victim's response is proportionate and not so unforeseeable or "daft," the chain of causation remains unbroken.
• R v. Majoram REASONABLE ACTIONS: - Case Facts: The defendant, Majoram, and others shouted abuse, kicked down the door of the victim's hostel room, and forced entry. Fearing for their safety, the victim jumped from the window, suffering serious injuries.

  - Legal Issue: The court had to determine whether the victim's reaction (jumping from the window) was reasonably foreseeable and if Majoram's actions caused the injuries.

  - Judgment: Majoram was found guilty of grievous bodily harm (GBH). The court ruled that the victim's reaction was a foreseeable consequence of Majoram's aggressive and threatening behavior.

  - Principle Established: This case reinforces the foreseeability test in causation: if the victim's response to the defendant's actions is reasonably foreseeable, the chain of causation remains intact.
• Unreasonable reaction: - The V's reaction is unreasonable and so unforeseeable

  - the court of appeal states that V's act has to be reasonably foreseeable to be in any proportion of threat

  - It also looks at the surroundings of the incident and if it was reasonable for the V to act in the way that they did
• R v. Williams and Davies UNREASONABLENESS: - Case Facts: The defendants, Williams and Davies, picked up a hitchhiker and allegedly tried to rob him. In fear, the victim jumped from their moving car and sustained fatal injuries.

  - Legal Issue: The court had to determine whether the victim's reaction (jumping from the car) broke the chain of causation or if the defendants' actions caused his death.

  - Judgment: The defendants were found guilty of manslaughter. The court ruled that the victim's reaction was not so unreasonable or "daft" as to break the chain of causation, as it was a foreseeable response to the threat.

  - Principle Established: This case emphasizes the reasonableness test for victim responses: the victim's actions must be proportional to the perceived threat, and only an unforeseeable or extreme response would break the chain of causat
• Problems with causation: - 'Taking your victim as you find them': It is unjust to hold D accountable if they had no idea of the more severe outcome it would have on someone. E.g. In R v. Blaue the D had no intention to kill the V but because of her 'thin-skull' she died and so the D was accountable for not wanting to kill her.

  - V refusing treatment: Should D be liable if V refuses treatment? Because if a D had not injured a person fatally but because they refused treatment should they be criminally liable for their death despite V changing the outcome?

  - Negligent medical treatment: If there is medical negligence should D still be held accountable? In R v. Cheshire should the D be accountable if it was the medical negligence that was the final cause of death (although V would have died anyway)
• R v. Dear: - Case Facts: The defendant, Dear, attacked a man with a knife after believing the victim had sexually assaulted his daughter. The victim later died from blood loss after allegedly interfering with his wounds or failing to seek medical attention.

  - Legal Issue: The court had to decide whether the victim's actions (e.g., reopening his wounds or neglecting treatment) broke the chain of causation or if Dear's attack was still the substantial cause of death.

  - Judgment: Dear was found guilty of murder. The court ruled that the victim's actions did not break the chain of causation because the original injury inflicted by Dear was still the substantial and operative cause of death.