Causation

• What does novus actus interveniens mean?

  new intervening act
• What is the general rule?

  defendant is responsible for all of the natural and possible consequences of their action
• R v pagett 1983- in a police shootout he used his kidnapped girlfriend as a human shield, resulting in her being fatally shot by the police.
• Was R v Pagett considered to be a novus actus interveniens?

  no
• LJ Goff stated - there can, we consider, be no doubt that a reasonable act of self preservation, being of course itself an act caused by the accuseds own act, does not operate as novus actus interveniens
• R v kennedy 2007 - defendant had supplied the victim with a class A drug, which the victim self injected and died as a result of.
• Did R v Kennedy successfully appeal conviction based off novus actus interveniens?

  yes
• Lord Bingham in the case of R v kennedy stated- the criminal law generally assumes the existence of free will. the law recognises certain exceptions, but generally speaking, informed adults of sound mind are treated as autonomous beings able to make their own decisions. None of these exceptions is relied on as possibly applicable In this case
• R v Wallace - victim ended their own life following an acid attack from the defendant
• Was conviction In R v Wallace treated as novus actus interveniens?

  no
• One has to take the victim as they find them. this is known as?

  the thin skull rule
• R v Herring 2022- stabbed an individual, the victim was a haemophiliac
• R v Blaue 1975 - defendant stabbed victim who suffered a pierced lung. in the hospital they refused a blood transfusion (which would’ve saved their life) due to religious reasons
• What is the test for factual causation?

  the But for test
• Leading case for factual causation?

  R v White 1910
• R v White 1910 - put cyanide in his mothers drink with the intention of killing her. however his mother died of a heart Attack before the poison had an effect.
• what Is the 2nd type of causation that must be proven?

  causation in Law
• Substantive and operative cause (causation in law) - R v cheshire 1991
• Need not be a sole cause, providing it is a cause - R v Pagett 1983