Causation

• Causation


  The legal term for this
• Actus reus


  • Part of the actus reus the prosecution will have to prove for many crimes
• Result crimes


  Crimes where the prosecution must prove that the defendant caused a particular result
• Proving causation is often a very straightforward task e.g. the defendant shot the victim and therefore clearly caused the death
• In other cases causation may be much more difficult to establish
• What the prosecution must prove

  • The defendant was the factual cause
  • The defendant was the legal cause
  • There was no intervening act which broke the chain of causation
• Factual causation


  The starting point is that the defendant must be the factual cause of the harm/injury
• But For test


  Used to establish factual causation - 'But for' the defendant's conduct would the victim have been harmed?
• If the harm would have occurred anyway, regardless of the defendant's actions then the defendant is the factual cause
• White


  • D put poison in his mums drink, but she died from a heart attack before drinking it. His actions are not the factual cause of the death.
• Pagett


  • D used his pregnant girlfriend as a human shield, police fired back and killed her. But for his actions, she wouldn't have died.
• As well as factual causation, the prosecution must also prove legal causation
• Legal Causation


  The defendant's conduct does not have to be the sole or main cause but must be more than a minimal cause
• The courts have stated that the conduct must be more than de minimis (more than a minimal cause)
• In Kimsey, the Court of Appeal held that instead of using "de minimis", it was acceptable to tell the jury that the defendant's conduct does not have to be the principal or substantial cause, as long as they are sure there was more than a slight or trifling link
• Chain of Causation


  There must be a direct link from the defendant's conduct to the consequence
• Novus actus interveniens


  A new intervening act that breaks the chain of causation
• Victim's own actions


  • Roberts: V jumped from the moving car, reasonably foreseeable
  • Williams: V jumped from the moving car, believed he would be victim of theft, V's conduct was not proportionate to the threat
• Chain of Causation


  There must be a direct link from the defendant's conduct to the consequence
• Novus actus interveniens


  (Latin: a new intervening act) - something else happens after the Defendant's act or omission that is sufficiently separate from the Defendant's conduct, and may break the chain of causation
• Ways the chain of causation can be broken

  • The Victim's own actions
  • The actions of a third party
  • Negligent medical treatment
• Actions of a third party

  If a third party has contributed to the unlawful consequence, the original attacker will still be liable if the third party's actions were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the actions of the defendant.
• Negligent Medical Treatment


  The general rule is that negligent medical treatment will not break the chain of causation.
• Egg Shell Skull Rule

  The defendant must take the victim as he finds them, meaning that if the victim has something unusual about his physical/mental state which makes an injury more serious, then the defendant is still liable for the more serious injury.