Causation

• Causation 


  Where are consequence must be proved then the prosecution has to show that:

  • the d’s conduct was the factual cause of that consequence and,
  • It was the legal cause of that consequence
• Factual cause - R v Padgett

  • defendant held his pregnant girlfriend hostage and the police fired and killed the girl
  •  (‘but for’ test)
• Kismey 


  D needs to be more than a ‘slight or trifling’ link
• Legal cause


  The rule is that the defendant can be guilty if his conduct was more than a ’minimal’ cause of the consequence. But the defendant’s conduct need not be a substantial cause - this is known as the de minimis rule
• white (intervening act)

  • mother had a heart attack before having the poison tea given by son
  • Wasn’t the factual cause of the death
• roberts

  • threatened by man and she jumped out the car
  • Foreseeable act not an intervening act because she jumped out of the car before she was threatened
  • victims own act was reasonably foreseeable given the threat
• Williams

  • theft of wallet - v jumped out of car
  • victims own act was unreasonable given the threat
• Marjoram

  • Defendant shouted abuse and kicked door of victim hotel room and victim fell from window and suffered injuries
  • Foreseeable act
• Smith

  • stabbed and received very poor treatment
  • injury caused by D was still ‘substantial’ and ‘operating’ at the time of death
• Cheshire

  • shot in fire and stomach and had breathing problems. Tube had to be inserted in throat and died of rare complications.
  • medical treatment only breaks the chain of causation if the D’s act was so potent in causing death that the jury deem it as insignificant
• Jordan

  • stabbed and given dose of penicillin but was allergic and he got an infection
  • Doctor’s Treatment was palpably wrong
  • doctors treatment was so palpably wrong that the D’s act became insignificant in the cause of death
• Blaue (thin skull rule) - victims own act

  • Victim stabbed by defendant and she needed a blood transfusion to save her life, but she refused because she was a Jehovah’s Witness and died
  • Victims Own Act; V’s act means the chain of causation will not be broken unless the V’s actions are disproportionate or unreasonable in the circumstances.
• Malcherek

  • switching off of a life support machine will not break the chain of causation