Causation

Question 1

Factual Causation

Answer 1

R v White [1910] but for teset

Question 2

Legal Causation

Answer 2

R v Benge [1959] D’s contribution must be more than de minimis but need not be the sole cause of the resulting harm.

Question 3

Multiple cause

Answer 3

No requirement that D’s conduct besufficent to cause AR by itslef- Warburton [2006]

Question 4

Intervening causes

Answer 4

Natural events: Causation attributed to D unless event was unforeseeable. Hart [1986]- D assaulted V and left her below high water mark.

Question 5

Exceptions to rule of unforceable events breaking causal chain

Answer 5

• pre-existing conditions: Blaue [1975] “take victim as they find them”
• Intended effects: If result of coincidental unforseeable route involving natural events was inteded by D then D is guilty. Demirarian [1989]

Question 6

Human Beings

to break causal chain must be

Answer 6

-Free deliberate & Informed Interventions - Pagett [1983] also Kennedy (No.2) [2007]

Question 7

Forseeable and culpable interventions

Answer 7

• > Jordan [1956]- Only “Palpably”bad medical treatment can break causal link
• > Smith [1959]- Where org wound still Op and significant cause of death. Death still attributed to D.
• > Cheshire [1991]- D’s act does not need to be sole or main cause. Omission cannot constitute nocus actus itnervvines (s&s)

Question 8

Innocent Agent Doctrine

Answer 8

D knowingly use Tas his aget to bring about prohibited result. Micheal [1840]- Mother used young child to adminsiter poision to infant.

Question 9

The victim

Answer 9

Rule, V’’s act doesn’t negative causation if:
->V’s conduct is in reaction to D’swrongdoing;
-> V’s reaction was reasonably foreseable possibility
Roberts [1971]

Question 10

Omission

Can be said to have caused consequence if:

Answer 10

-> He has a duty to prevent thes consequences for occuring
->If his intervention would have made a dfference. (Prosec must show beyond reasonable doubt)
Dalloway [1847]

Question 11

Omissions cannot be novus actus interveniens

Answer 11

• > While omissions may be the legal cuase of that harm, but it is normally a concurrent cause.
• > The precise reason ommision are punished is because they fail to break the chain of causation.