Causation

Question 1

R v White

Answer 1

Factual - but for test

Although attempted murder had began, V died from unrelated condition - D not convicted of murder

Question 2

R v Pagett

Answer 2

But for - the consequence of the V’s death wouldn’t have occurred but for the D’s actions

De minimus - need not be the sole/main cause

Question 3

R v Dalloway

Answer 3

Factual - but for

V’s death was unavoidable and would have occurred without the D’s actions

Question 4

R v Kimsey

Answer 4

Legal - de minimus

Lord Woolf - D’s act must have ‘more than minimally, negligibly or trivially contributed to the death’

Question 5

R v HM Coroner for Inner London, ex parte Douglas-Williams

Answer 5

Legal - de minimus

Verdict of unlawful killing can only be left to jury if D’s act was a substantial cause of death

Question 6

R v Benge

Answer 6

Acts of Third Person (and de minimus)

The D’s negligent act was the substantial cause of death, even when others contributed to it

Question 7

R v Kennedy

Answer 7

Novus actus interveniens - acts of victim

V freely and voluntarily administered the drug without any pressure from D - D not liable

Question 8

R v Williams and Davis

Answer 8

Novus actus interveniens - acts of victim

Was the V’s reaction in ‘the range of responses which might be expected’ from a reasonable person in same circumstances

Question 9

R v Majoram

Answer 9

Novus actus interveniens - acts of victim

A reasonable person could foresee V’s act (not ‘daft or unexpected’) - so D was liable

Question 10

R v Holland

Answer 10

Novus actus interveniens - acts of victim: self-neglect rule

Where the V refuses or delays seeking medical treatment, D is still legal cause

Question 11

R v Dear

Answer 11

Novus actus interveniens - acts of victim: self-neglect rule

Depending on the situation, suicide doesn’t have to break the chain

Question 12

R v Cheshire

Answer 12

Novus actus interveniens - acts of third person: medical treatment

Doesn’t break chain unless ‘extraordinary and unusual’ or ‘palpably wrong’ - treatment so independent from D’s actions that it becomes a greater effect on the consequence

Question 13

R v Jordan

Answer 13

Novus actus interveniens - acts of third person: medical treatment

D wasn’t liable as V’s original wound had healed, further medical treatment was deemed ‘palpably wrong’

Question 14

R v Hart

Answer 14

Novus actus interveniens - acts of God/ unforseebale natural events

Must be extraordinary - wasn’t an intervening act as death was foreseeable.

Question 15

R v Blaue

Answer 15

Thin skull rule:
D stabbed V, V needed blood but refused as a Jehovah’s Witness and died.
The CoA: ‘those who use violence on others must take their victims as they found them’

Self-neglect rule:
If V refuses medical treatment that would save them should D still be liable

Question 16

R v McKechnie

Answer 16

Thin skull rule

Doctor discovered ulcer when treating V’s head injuries inflicted by D. To remove this, with V’s head injuries, could kill V

Question 17

R v Hayward

Answer 17

Thin skull rule

Where V suffers from a medical condition, regardless of if D knew about this, the chain isn’t broken

Question 18

Causation plan

Answer 18

Applies to: murder, s20 and s18 GBH, ABH, manslaughter

Issue - Causation refers to set of rules which helps to determine whether D’s actions are responsible for the prohibited consequence
- D’s conduct must be: factual cause, legal cause, and no intervening act which breaks the chain of causation

Factual cause:
- ‘But for’ test - R v White, R v Paggett, R v Dalloway
- But for the D’s act/omission, the V wouldn’t have suffered the consequence / consequence wouldn’t have occurred
Apply…

Legal cause:
- Examines culpability and blameworthiness of D
- De minimus principle (more than minimal contribution) - R v Kimsey, HM Coroner for Inner London ex parte Douglas-Williams, (R v Paggett)
- D’s act/omission must be an operative and substantial cause of the consequence (with no intervening acts), but need not be the sole or main cause of death
Apply….

-Thin skull rule - R v Blaue, R v Hayward, R v McKechnie
- D must take his victim as he finds him, even if death/serious injury isn’t reasonably foreseeable
- issue: D is liable even if there’s no intention to kill/cause serious injury

• Novus actus interveniens:
  1) Acts of victim - R v Williams and Davis, R v Majoram, R v Kennedy
  - V’s own acts can break the chain and be the legal cause, unless they’re reasonably foreseeable by D
  - ‘Self-neglect rule’ - R v Holland, R v Dear, R v Blaue
  2) Acts of third person
  - Third person must overtake the actions of D and become the operating cause of consequence - R v Benge
  - Medical intervention - R v Cheshire, R v Jordan
  3) Acts of God/ unforeseeable natural event - R v Hart
  Apply…..

Conclusion - If D satisfies all elements of factual and legal causation, proving to be the operating and substantial cause of the prohibited consequence, they are liable for causing the act