Causation

Question 1

Legal cause three parts

Answer 1

Legal cause = narrows potential legal liability.
■Three parts of legal causation analysis,
■Three parts often inconsistently & incompletely applied by the courts (but should mention them all in your analysis):
–1. Substantial
–2. Blameworthy
–3. Operative

Question 2

Substantial

Answer 2

Part 1: Substantial
–D’s conduct made a substantial contribution to the result.
–D’s conduct must be more than de minimis (i.e. conduct is more than trivial, negligible, insignificant or unsubstantial)
–D’s conduct doesn’t have to be the main or sole cause of the result
–R v Kimsey [1996] Crim LR 35; R v Cato [1976] 1 All ER 260

Question 3

Blameworthy

Answer 3

Part 2: Blameworthy
–D’s conduct is blameworthy in causing the result.
–In most instances, D’s blameworthiness is very apparent.
–Some element of fault for D in causing the result.
–In most cases, need only state that this is satisfied; need only discuss in-depth where this is contested/in controversy.
–Blameworthiness is rarely contested/controversial, thus rarely litigated.
–An answer to a problem question usually need only highlight this requirement was satisfied.

R v Dalloway (1847) 2 Cox CC 273;
R v Hughes [2013] UKSC 56;
R v Taylor [2016] UKSC 5

Question 4

Operating and operative

Answer 4

Part 3: Operative/Operating Cause
–D’s conduct must be the operative cause of the result.
–Operative = significant or substantial cause of the result at the time it occurred.
–Chain of causation between conduct & result must not be broken, i.e. no novus actus interveniens.
–R v Smith [1959] 2 QB 35