Causation

Question 1

What do you need for causation?
What is causation relevant to?

Answer 1

• need to link the conduct (action) to the consequence (result)
• relevant to the actus reus

Question 2

What is the outline rule?

Answer 2

• both factual and legal causation apply
• factual is applied first like a qualification test

Question 3

What are the steps for causation? (6)

Answer 3

1. Is there factual causation?
2. If yes, is there legal causation?
3. To check this: is it a significant cause? And
4. Is it a salient cause?
5. To check salient: is it too remote? And
6. is there an intervening cause?

Question 4

• What is factual causation known as?
• how do we state the test?

Answer 4

• ‘but for’ causation
• but for D’s conduct, would teh same consequence have occurred at exactly the same time in exactly the same way?

Question 5

What must D’s conduct be for causation to apply?

Answer 5

D’s conduct must be a ‘sine qua non’ -> an essential condition

Question 6

What are the 2 key cases for causation?

Answer 6

• R v Dalloway [1847]
• R v Broughton [2020]

Question 7

What are the 2 sub-tests for legal causation?

Answer 7

1. a significant (or substantial) cause
2. a salient (or operating) cause

Question 8

What does substantial mean?

Answer 8

• a question of judgement → courts say ‘not insubstantial’
• need to rely on intuition → a common sense approach to the threshold of significance -> no legal test for this
• multiple causes are possible → you can convict multiple people for causing one outcome → as long as each of them has contributed ‘not insignificantly’

Question 9

What does operating mean?

Answer 9

D’s actions shouldn’t fade into the background

Question 10

What are the two key ideas for operating?

Answer 10

1. not too remote
2. no intervening cause / break in the chain of causation → a novus actus interveniens

Question 11

What are the 8 situations for the second key idea → the novus actus interveniens?

Answer 11

1. unforeseeable natural events
   
   1. do NOT break chain of causation
   2. D may be liable for some injury, but not for death of V
2. reasonably foreseeable natural event
   
   1. Chain of causation is NOT broken
3. (independent) interventions by V
   
   1. usually breaks chain of causation
4. (non-independent) interventions by V
   
   1. chain of causation NOT broken
5. Interventions by (non-medical) third parties
   
   1. as long as the intervention is free, deliberate and informed, chain is broken
6. Medical interventions
   
   1. won’t ordinarily break the chain of causation UNLESS negligence is really bad
   2. there is special leeway for doctors, since there are going to be cases where they do everything right but they still cannot save their patient
7. Omissions
   
   1. does NOT break chain of causation
8. Abnormal susceptibilities
   
   1. does NOT break the chain of causation → you have to take the victim as you find them

Question 12

What is the case for reasonably foreseeable natural events?

Answer 12

Harlot’s case [1560]

Question 13

What are the 4 cases for independent interventions by V?

Answer 13

1. R v Kennedy [2007]
2. R v BW [2018]
3. R v Field [2021]
4. R v Rebelo [2021] →also arguably falls under abnormal susceptibilities

Question 14

What are the 2 cases for non-independent interventions by V?

Answer 14

1. R v Roberts (1972)
2. R v Dhaliwal [2006]

Question 15

What are 2 cases for interventions by non-medical 3rd parties?

Answer 15

1. R v Pagett (1983)
2. R v A (2020)

Question 16

What are the 3 cases for medical interventions?

Answer 16

1. R v Jordan (1956)
2. R v Cheshire [1991]
3. R v BW [2018]

Question 17

What is the case for omissions?

Answer 17

R v Blaue [1975] → arguably also falls under abnormal susceptibilities

Question 18

What is the case for abnormal susceptibilities?

Answer 18

R v Hayward (1908)

Question 19

Why is the case for R v Hughes important?

Answer 19

• even though it seems to be a causation case, the condition of the offence is not met
• controversial statute on driving offences