Causation

• vital part of actus reus for result crimes is proving that not only did the D do something or fail to do something, but that this act or omission is what caused victim's injury/ death
• Rules of Causation:

  1. D's actions must be FACTUAL CAUSE
  2. D's actions must b LEGAL CAUSE
  3. Must be no NEW INTERVENING ACT which breaks CHAIN OF CAUSATION
• RULE 1:

  Factual Test -> based on facts.

  also knowns as 'but for' test

  R v White (1910):

  • White put poison in mothers milk so could inherit money, didn't finish milk. Had heart attack in her sleep. White not guilty of her murder but was guilty of attempted murder
• RULE 2:

  Legal Test -> Was D's act (or omission) more than minimal cause (de minimus)?

  Must be more than slight or trifling link between D's act or omission and harm suffered by V.

  
  

  R v Kimsey (1996):

  • Kimsey in high speed drag race, girlfriend driving car he was racing. Girlfriend lost control and died as result of accident. Kimsey charged with causing death by dangerous driving.
  • found guilty of causing her death
• RULE 2:

  R v Smith (1959):

  • Smith stabbed fellow soldier. Whilst trying to treat victim, medical officers dropped victim off stretcher, mistakenly gave him punctured ling. Solider died.
  • Smith found guilty of murder - actions were the "operating and substantial cause of death".
• RULE 3:

  New Intervening Acts -> referred to as Novus Actus Interveniens. If chain of causations broken by NAI, no longer link between D's actions and injury
• WILL BREAK CHAIN OF CAUSATION

  third party actions which are 'free, deliberate and informed', including self injection of drugs -> R v Kennedy (no.2) (2007): victim decided to inject syringe of their won free will.
• WILL BREAK CHAIN OF CAUSATION

  daft and unforeseeable actions of the victim -> R v Williams and Davis (1992): could not be foreseen that the passenger would jump out of car here as it was 'daft' reaction - broke chain
• WILL BREAK CHAIN OF CAUSATION

  Medical treatment that is 'so independent of D's act and so potent' is crime in itself -> R v Jordan (1956) -> victim's wound had healed when medical treatment given, treatment caused death
• WILL NOT BREAK CHAIN OF CAUSATION:

  Third party actions which are done in performance of legal duty -> R v Pagett (1983): police officer was exercising legal duty, so did not break chain
• WILL NOT BREAK CHAIN OF CAUSATION:

  foreseeable actions of the victim -> R v Roberts (1971): the victim's attempt to escape was foreseeable here and therefore did not break chain of causation
• WILL NOT BREAK CHAIN OF CAUSATION:

  something done for self-preservation -> R v Lewis (1970): victim jumped out of window for self-preservation reasons, to escape attack from D. Didn't break chain
• WILL NOT BREAK CHAIN OF CAUSATION:

  Usual medical treatment, even if mistakes made. Includes switching off life support machine -> R v Cheshire (1991): intervening medical treatment which leads to complications will not usually break chain. R v Malcherek (1981): doctor switching off life support machine will not break chain
• WILL NOT BREAK CHAIN OF CAUSATION:

  Victim's self-neglect or suicide -> R v Wallace (2018): victims decision to be euthanized was directly linked to D's actions, so it didn't break the chain
• RULE 3:

  Think Skull Rule -> "Take your victim as you find them"

  • means D is liable for full extent of their actions even if victims suffered consequences that are worse than what would be normally suffered due to some other pre-existing factors

  Case: R v Blaue (1975):

  • Blaue stabbed woman who refused his sexual advances. Refused blood transfusion in hospital which would have saved her life. Died as result.
  • Blaue found guilty of her murder. Tried to argue refusal of treatment broke chain of causation, was refused due to this skull rule.