CAUSATION

• What is factual causation?

  Whether or not the defendant’s conduct is required for the offence
• What is the “but for” test?

  A test of causation in which the action could not have taken place BUT FOR the convicted’s actions
• CASE: White 1910

  D put cyanide in the mother’s drink, intending to kill her. The mother died of a heart attack before consuming the drink. D was not convicted since they were not the cause of death.
• CASE: Pagett (1983)


  D used his girlfriend as a shield whilst in a gun fight with the police. The police fired back and the girlfriend was killed. Pagett was convicted of manslaughter - the girlfriend wouldn’t have died BUT FOR Pagett’s actions.
• What is legal causation?

  If it is fair to blame the defendant legally and whether the defendant’s actions were the most significant cause of death.
• What is the De minimis principle?

  When an issue is too small to be a significant cause of the crime.
• What case displays the De Minimis principle?

  R v KIMSEY (1996)

  • D and victim were in a high speed race. Kimsey span out and caused to V to lose control of the car and died.
  • The judge directed the jury that dangerous driving doesn’t have to be a ‘substantial’ cause of death but simply a cause.
• What is the ‘thin skull rule’?

  The defendant must take the victime as they find them.

  • If the victim has something unusual about their physical and mental state then worsens a injury, the defendant is liable for the more serious injury
• CASE: R v Blaue

  Victim was stabbed after she refused to have sex with Blaue.

  She refused a blood transfusion, due to being a Jehovah’s witness, which led to her condition getting worse and she died.

  Blaue was charged with manslaughter but appealed saying that the transfusion was the cause of her death.

  The appeal was quashed since the stabbing caused her death.
• What is the chain of causation?

  The link between the act and the consequence once factual and legal causation has been established.
• What can break the chain of causation?

  An act of a third party

  The victim’s own act

  A natural but unpredictable event
• CASE: R v Smith (1959)

  Highlights a possible act of a third party

  Two soldiers had a fight and one was stabbed in the lung. Victim was carried to a medic and was dropped. He also received artificial respiration which worsened his injuries - he died.

  However, the stabbing was decided to be the most significant cause of death.
• CASE: R v Cheshire (1991)


  Highlights a possible act of a third party.

  Cheshire shot the victim in the stomach and thigh.

  Upon receiving medical treatment, he struggled to breathe and received a tracheotomy and died from rare complications.

  The defendant was still held liable for the victim’s death.
• CASE: R v Jordan (1956)


  Highlights an act of a third party being an intervening act.

  V was stabbed in the stomach. He was treated and the wounds were healing well.

  He was given an antibiotic but was allergic to it and therefore died. D was not guilty of murder since the stab wound was not the most significant cause - highlights the de minimis rule.
• CASE: Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993)


  A doctor had taken Bland off of life support and Bland died.

  Court ruled that life support is merely life-prolonging rather than life-saving and is not murder.
• What is the precedent on the victim’s own acts?

  If D causes the victim to act in a foreseeable way, then any injury sustained by the victim will be considered to have been caused by the defendant and this will not break the chain of causation
• What is the difference between R v Roberts and R v Williams concerning the victim’s own act?

  That the action to escape in Williams was not in proportion to the threat, compared to the case of Roberts where the escape was in proportion to the threat