causation

• in deciding if d caused the ... to V there are 2 tests, Firstly factual causation is used to decide if but for the D guilty act, White. But for... doing .. wouldn't have occurred.

  Second legal causation needs to be satisfied, D needs to be the substantial and operating cause of ..., however they do not need to be the only cause

  Substantial cause requires the ds role to be more than minimal in Kimsey, this was said to be more than a slight of trifling link ( apply)
• Next the d needs to be the operating cause of the v ... this means the conduct must be a significant cause there must be no breaks in the chain of causation because of a new interview ending act
• ACT OF THE VICTIM

  here the act of the v could have broken the chain between D and V. However this would only break the chain if it was reasonably foreseeable, Roberts (apply)
• ACT OF THE THIRD PARTY

  here the act of the 3rd party could have broken the chain of causation between d and v, however this would only break the chain if it is reasonably foreseeable Rafferty (apply)
• Inadequate medical treatment

  inadequate medical treatment may have broken the chain of causation. poor medical treatment doesn't normally break the chain unless it was so independent and potent it made the Ds act insignificant, Cheshire (apply)
• Thin Skull Rule

  However V had a vulnerability because ... According to the thin skull rule if such a vulnerability makes the v more susceptible to death this doesn't break the chain even if the d was unaware and couldn't force it as the d should 'take the victim as he finds him' Blaue