Causation

• The guilty act must be the cause of the consequence to find the defendant guilty.
• Prosecution must show that:

  1. The defendant's conduct was the factual cause - causation in fact.
  2. The defendant's conduct was in law the cause - causation in law.
  3. That there were no intervening act which broke the chain of causation.
• Causation in Fact


  Only guilty if the consequence would not have happened 'but for' the D's actions.

  Case: R v Pagett
• Causation in Law 


  D can be guilty even though his conduct was not the only cause of the consequence.

  The rule- D's conduct must be more than a 'minimal' cause - but it does not need to be the substantial cause.

  Case: R v Kimsey
• Thin Skull Rule


  D must take the Victim as he finds them.

  If the Victim has something unusual about his physical or mental state they may make an injury worse - D will be liable for the more serious injury.

  Case: R v Blaue
• Chain of Causation - Must be a direct link from the D's conduct to the consequence.

  If the chain breaks, the extra thing(s) happening is called an 'intervening act'.
• Chain of Causation can be broken by:

  1. Act of third party
  2. Victim's own actions
  3. Natural but predictable event
• Act of third party

  Medical treatment is unlikely to break the chain, unless so independent from the D's actions.

  The intervening act must make the D's actions insignificant.

  R v Jordan

  R v Cheshire
• Victims own act

  If D causes Victim to react in a foreseeable way then any injury to the Victim will be caused by the D. However, if Victim's reaction is unreasonable then this may break the chain of causation.