4. causation

• The breach of duty must be shown to have caused the victim’s death.
• The breach of duty must have factually caused the victim's death, this is shown with the but/for test. This asks would the death have occurred but for the defendant’s breach?
• What case illustrates the but/for test?

  r v Pagett
• What are the facts of r v Pagett?

  D used his pregnant girlfriend as a human shield during a shootout with police. She was killed by police bullets. Court held that but for D’s actions, she would not have died — factual causation established.
• What si the significance of the case of r v pagett?

  It illustrates the but/for test
• The breach of duty must have caused the victim's death in law. this is shown with the legal causation test, it looks at whether the defendant’s conduct was a significant contribution to the death.
• What case illustrates legal causation?

  r v Cheshire
• What is the significance of the case of r v cheshire?

  It illustrates legal causation
• What are the facts of r v chesire?

  D shot V. V later died from rare complications after surgery. Court held that unless the medical treatment was so independent and so potent in causing death, D’s actions still legally caused death.
• What are the three potential breaks in the chain of causation?

  Negligent, poor or inappropriate medical treatment

  the Victim acts unreasonably and unforeseeably

  The victim unreasonably refuses medical treatment
• What case illustrates negligent, poor or innaporpriate medical treatment breaking the chain of causation?

  r v Jordan
• what is the significance of the case of r v Jordan?

  It illustrates negligent, poor or innaporpriate medical treatment breaking the chain of causation
• What case illustrates the victim's unreasonable and/or unforeseeable actions breaking the chain of causation?

  r v Roberts
• What is the significance of the case of r v roberts?

  It illustrates the victim's unreasonable and/or unforeseeable actions breaking the chain of causation?
• What case illustrates how unreasonable refusal of medical care by the victim breaks the chain of causation?

  r v Blaue
• what is the significance of the case of r v blaue?

  it illustrates how unreasonable refusal of medical care by the victim breaks the chain of causation
• what are the facts of r v jordan?

  D stabbed V, who recovered. Hospital later gave palpably wrong treatment, which caused death. Chain of causation was broken, so D not liable.
• What are the facts of r v roberts?

  V jumped from D’s moving car to escape sexual advances. D still liable, as V’s actions were reasonably foreseeable.
• what are the facts of r v blaue?

  V refused a life-saving blood transfusion due to religious beliefs. D still liable for the stabbing, as he had to “take his victim as he found them” (thin skull rule).
• In terms of causation, why was the conviction in r v Broughton overturned?

  Although the defendant failed to seek medical help for his girlfriend after giving her drugs, it could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that this failure caused her death. As such, causation was not established, and his conviction for GNM was overturned.