Causation

• In order for a defendant to be found guilty of a crime, the courts must find that D caused the victims injury. To prove causation both factual and legal causation must be proven.
• For the defendant to be convicted, causation must be proven. Firstly, factual causation must be established using the 'but for' test, 'but for D's actions, would V has suffered the harm? If the answer is no, then D is liable (R v White).
• Secondly, legal causation must be satisfied. To do this, the defendant must be de minimis; more than a minor cause (Kimsey). It must also be proven that the D is the operating and substantial cause of the victim's harm; most to blame (Smith).
• To fully satisfy causation, there must be no new intervening acts (novus actus interveniens) that break the chain of causation.
• New Intervening Acts:

  1. Actions of the victim
  2. Victim's self neglect
  3. Actions of a 3rd party
  4. Poor medical treatment
  5. Thin skull rule
• Actions of the victim:

  • if d causes V to act in a foreseeable, reasonable and not daft way then no break
  • R v Roberts - liable for injuries to V, jumping out of the car was a reasonable action to foresee
• Victim's Self-neglect:

  • if v mistreats or neglects to treat injuries, won't break chain
  • defendant must accept the v can refuse treatment, may be irrational, stupid or afraid of hospitals
  • R v Wallace - threw sulphuric acid into v's face, guilty, suicide will not break the chain of causation
• Actions of a 3rd Party:

  • only break the chain if they are unreasonable and unforeseeable
  • R v Pagett - used pregnant girlfriend as a shield, police acted reasonable and foreseeable so chain was not broken
• 'Palpably Wrong' Poor Medical Treatment:

  • may break the chain if it is palpably wrong
  • R v Jordan - if it was a normal dose, D would've been guilty even if V was allergic
  • R v Smith - d's actions were held to be the operating and substantial cause, not break the chain
  • Malcherek and Steel - discontinuance of medical treatment which allows initial wound to take its cause and end in death will not break the chain of causation
• Think Skull Rule

  • defendant must 'take their victim as they find them'
  • R v Blaue - v's actions were not unreasonable, no blood transfusion as was a Jehovah's witness