Causation

• Factual Causation


  The But For test.

  But for the act/omission of the defendant would the end result have occurred.
• Factual Causation - R v White


  Case Facts: The defendant put arsenic in his mum's bedtime drink. In the morning, she was dead but due to an unrelated heart attack.

  Points of law: He was guilty of attempted murder and not murder as but for the defendants actions, she would have died anyway.
• Factual Causation - R v Blaue


  Case Facts: Blaue stabbed a woman and as a result she needed a blood transfusion, however, she couldn't have one because she was a Jehovah's Witness. She died.

  Points of Law: He is the factual cause because she wouldn't have needed a blood transfusion if he hadn't of stabbed her. He was guilty of manslaughter.
• Factual causation - R v Dalloway


  Case facts: The defendant was driving a horse and cart but didn't have control of the reigns. A boy ran into the road and was killed by the horse and cart.

  Points of Law: The defendant was not guilty as if he did have control of the cart, the boys would have died anyway (due to running into the road).
• Legal Causation 


  The Operative and Substantial cause Test.

  Was it the defendant's act/omission an operative and substantial cause (more than trivial) of the result, where there was no intervening act?
• Legal Causation - R v Malcherek and steel


  Case Facts: The defendants injured the victims so badly that they were put on life support. However, they were brain stem dead and were taken off life support and died.

  Points of law: there were no intervening acts as it was the defendant's actions that caused the victims to be brain stem dead. They are guilty by legal causation.
• Legal Causation - R v Roberts


  Case facts: The defendant picked up a hitchhiker. Once the car was moving, he threatened to rape her and beat her. She jumped from the moving car and broke her leg.

  Points of law: the defendant put the victim in a dangerous situation and should have foreseen that she would try and escape. He was responsible for her injures.
• Intervening Acts


  These can break the chain of causation.

  If the intervening act is unforeseeable then the defendant is not liable for the end result and the chains is broken.

  If the act is foreseeable then there is no break in the chain and the defendant is responsible.
• Intervening Acts - R v Williams 


  Case facts: the defendant picked up a hitchhiker, he then leaned to the other side of the care to reach the glove box. She was scared and jumped out of the moving car and died.

  Points of Law: The victim's reaction was disproportionate to the threat and therefore it was not foreseeable. The chain is broken, defendant not guilty.
• Intervening Acts - R v Pagett


  Case Facts: Deferent kidnapped his pregnant girlfriend at gunpoint. The police surrounded him and he fired at the police, who then fired back and resultantly killed her.

  Point of law: It was foreseeable that if the defendant fired at the police, they would fire back. The chain is not broken and therefore he was the operative and substantial cause of her death.
• Medical Treatment 


  This only breaks the chain of causation if the treatment has been grossly negligent.
• Medical Treatment - R v Jordan


  Case Facts: The defendant stabbed the victim. The victim is in hospital and the doctor gives her an overdose of a drug she is allergic to. The victim dies.

  Points of Law: The defendant was not guilty of manslaughter, only of the stab wound. The doctors actions were grossly negligent and were not foreseeable. Intervening act, broke chain of causation.
• Medical treatment - R v Cheshire 


  Case facts: The defendant shot the victim. The victim needs a tracheotomoy. The doctor realised something had gone wrong with the procedure and the victim died.

  Points of Law: It wasn't gross negligence as the doctor had attempted to intervene the side effects. Therefore the defendant was guilty by causation of the victim's death.
• Egg Shell Skull Rule

  The defendant must take their victim as they find them. This means that the defendant remains liable for the harm caused to the victim due to their own nature.
• Egg Shell Skull - R v Blaue

  The defendant remains guilty for the victim's death because in this case the victim's religion made them more vulnerable and this vulnerability would not have been exposed if Blaue hadn't stabbed them. He remains liable.
• Egg Shell Skull - R v Holland


  This case proves that self-neglect does not break the chain of causation.

  The defendant cut the victim's finger badly. The victim refused medical treatment and died of an infection.

  The defendant is guilty of manslaughter as the victim has the right to refuse medical treatment. It doesn't break the chain of causation.