Causation

• Causation is for the jury to decide whether...

  the Defendants act caused the result suffered by the victim.
• What are the two types of causation?

  1. Factual causation
  2. Legal causation
• What test is used to prove Factual causation?

  The But for test
• The but for test states...

  If it was not but for the actions of the defendant, the result would not have occured.
• What case is used for the But for test?

  R v White
• What does Legal causation mean?

  Can the result be fairly said to be the fault of the defendant, meaning even if the D is not the factual cause of death, he is still a cause and should be held liable.
• What case demonstrates legal causation?

  R v Paggett - D had used his girlfriend as a human shield whilst being shot at by armed police, even though he was not the sole cause of death, he was still a cause, and so was held liable.
• The De minimus principle states what the D does must not just be trivial. It can be A cause of death not necessarily THE cause of death.
• Sometimes the chain of causation can be broken by a independant factor or event. If this occurs, the D cannot be held liable, this is called a...

  Novus Actus Intervenious
• What are the 2 main Novus Actus Intervenious we look at in law?

  1. Actions of Third parties
  2. Victims own acts
• Actions of a third party: Medical negligence states where D inflicts injury on V which requires medical treatment, will be held liable for murder or manslaughter if the treatment is improper or negligent by the staff


  R v Smith - D is liable if injuries are still the operating and substantial cause of death

  R v Cheshire - Medical treatment only breaks chain of causation in unusual cases

  R v Jordan - Medical negligence can be so palpably wrong that D will be relieved from liability
• When doctors turn of life support machines for a Victim who has ended up in such a state from D's actions -

  R v Malcherek states that Brain death is legal death

  NHS Trust v Bland states that PVS is legal death
• A pre existing condition on the part of the Victim will also not be enough to break the chain of causation due to

  The thin skull rule, which states you take your victims as you find them, therefore if D causes the victim injuries, but they worsen because of a pre existing condition they have, the D will still be liable.
• Which case demonstrates the Thin Skull rule?

  R v Blaue - V rejected a blood transfussion which would have saved their life, but due to medical reasons they did not, which resulted them to die. D was still liable for the death of V.
• If the D causes the V to act in a forseeable way, then any injury to the V will be considered to have been caused by the D, so the chain is not broken, however...


  If the V does something daft or unexpected that is not forseeable, then this may act as a Novus Actus Intervenious and break the chain of causation.
• What case introduced the daftness test in relation to Victims own acts?

  R v Roberts
• What are omissions?

  An omission is a failure to act
• There are 2 situations which punish failure to act:

  1. Strict liability offences - such as speeding
  2. When you are considered to be under a duty to act - such as a lifeguard not saving someone from drowning when they can see them drowning
• In law there are 5 situations when there is a duty to act:

  1. If an act of parliament/statute imposes duty to act
  2. If you are under a contract to act
  3. If you have a close relationship
  4. If you voluntarily assume responsibility of another
  5. If you have created a dangerous situation
• 1. Parliament/Statuatory duty to act

  It is unlawful to not act under statute for example under the Road Traffic Act 1988 s.6 - failing to provide a breath sample to police when requested for analysis is an offence.
• 2. Duty to act under contract

  Doctors have a duty to act, lifeguards etc.

  Adomako 1994
• 3. Duty arising out of a relationship

  E.g. Parents to children - husband and wife have a duty to care towards the child, and to eachother etc.

  Gibbons and proctor 1918
• 4. Voluntary assumptions of care

  Expressed or implied duty by someone who voluntarily undertakes to care for another, e.g. relative coming to stay with you for a long time.

  Stone and Dobinson 1977
• 5. Creation of a dangerous situation

  When a person starts a chain of event which if uninterrupted will cause harm or damage, then that person is under a duty to take all the steps in thier power to minimise the harm.

  R v Miller
• Mens rea is the

  mental element of a crime, the intention to kill.

  This can be seen in premeditation from the defendant.
• What are the 2 types of intention?

  Direct intention is when the accused actually wants the result to occur - R v Mohan

  Oblique intention is when the accused does not desire a particular result but in acting as they did, they realised to the point of virtual certainty that it might occur - R v Woollin
• Transferred malice is where the D's intention to injure the intended victim can be transferred to the unintended victim.

  Lord Mustill said the intended victim and the actual victim are treated as if they are one.

  R v Latimer

  R v Mitchell
• Recklessness can be enough to satisfy the means rea, it is subjectively tested meaning ' D must be able to forsee a risk and then go on to take it '


  So it is based on what the defendant was thinking
• The case of R v Cunningham is where subjective recklessness was created, the court of appeal said recklessness would consider 'if the risk was in D's mind at the time the offence was committed'.


  Therefore, if a D is reckless and commits the actus reus , they can be held criminally liable.