Chapter 4: Causation

Question 1

What is causation

Answer 1

Causation is the element that the prosecution has to prove, after the ulawful act or omission has been committeed, that the chain in causation led the result/consequence

The prosecution also has to prove that the causation was conducted beyond reasonable dout (Woolmington v DPP)

Question 2

Who decides if there was a chain in causation

Answer 2

Judge simplifies the causation and decided by the jury

Question 3

What happens if there is break in the chain of causation

Answer 3

If the prosecution fails to prove the unlawful act caused the consequence, then the accsued will not be deemed guilty

However, they are still charged with other offences

Question 4

What are the 2 elements in causation

Answer 4

Factual Cause

Legal Cause

Question 5

What is factual cause

Answer 5

Whether the result would have happned if it weren’t for the defendant’s conduct

• “But for” test - consequence wouldn’t have happened as when it did “but for” the conduct of the defendant

Question 6

What is the case for the ‘but for’ test?

Answer 6

R v White

Facts

1. D poisoned mothers drink
2. Mother died of heart attack before drinking the poison

Held

• No factual cause
• But for D’s actions the mother would have died anyway
• Whether the result of the crime would be like that if it weren’t for the actions of the unlawful act

Question 7

What is legal cause and the 2 elements that needs to be proven

Answer 7

To ensure that the consequence are attributable to the Defendant’s act and that the Defendant’s act is a substantial/significant cause of the consequence

Question 8

What are the cases to show the act of defendant attributing to the result

Legal Cause

Answer 8

R v White

R v Dalloway

Question 9

What are the cases to show that the act was a substantial/significant cause of the result

Answer 9

R v Hennigan

R v Cato

Question 10

What is the element of break in chain of causation

Answer 10

The need to consider whether the act amounts to novus actus interveniens (a new act which intervenes) to break the chain in causation

Question 11

What are the 3 scenarios/cases that break the chain in causation

Answer 11

• Actions or conditions of the victim
• Actions of third parties
• Medical cases

Question 12

What are the 5 circumstances that the break in the chain of causation was caused by the victim’s own acts or conditions

Answer 12

1. Neglect by the victim
2. Victim attemtpting to escape
3. Egg-shell Skull Rule
4. Victim committed suicide
5. Victim takes drugs

Question 13

What is the general rule of neglect by the victim

1 case

Answer 13

R v Holland

Facts

1. D suffered many severe cuts on finger
2. Was advised to get it amputated to prevent infection
3. Neglected medical advice
4. Got it in the end but was too late

Held

• Generally, omissions don’t break the chain in causation

Question 14

What is the elements to the victim attempting to escape which breaks COC

2 cases

Answer 14

R v Williams & Davies

• Conduct of the victim had to be proportionate to the gravity of the threat (breaks COC)

R v Roberts

• Victim’s acts were natural consequence and reasonably foreseeable consequence of
• But if the defendant’s act
  If the actions were so daft and unexpected that no reasonable man in the same situation could foresee, breaks COC

Question 15

What is the element of the Egg-shell skull rule which breaks COC

1 case

Answer 15

R v Blaue

• Must take victims as they find them
• can’t argue whether the victim had pre-existing conditions that caused the death

Question 16

What is the element and cases for victim commiting suicide

2 cases

Answer 16

The unlawful act is so related to the outcome, then COC doesn’t break

• R v Wallace
• R v Dhaliwal

Question 17

What are the 3 elements for victim taking drugs breaking COC

3 cases

Answer 17

R v Kennedy (No.2)

• Victim had to have free and voluntarily self-adminitered the drugs by the person who suppied it (breaks COC)

R v Rebelo (Bernard)

• D was addicted to drugs and the injection was free and voluntary and risk was infromed

R v Field

• V (old man) consumed alchohol and drugs voluntarily and freely, while being informed (break in COC)

Question 18

What case showed that COC was not broken by the Actions of Third Parties?

1 case

Answer 18

R v Pagett

Facts: used girlfriend as human shield, police shot her instead

Held: Didn’t break COC, the conduct of the police was a foreseeable/expected response to the defendant’s actions

Question 19

What are the elements for Actions of third parties causing break in chain of causation

1 case

Answer 19

R v Rafferty

Facts:

• Defendant in a joint enterprise to beat a victim. He withdrew after kicking a few times

Held:

• COA said the drowining was so completely different from the injuries for which Raffety was responsible, that it overwhelmed those injuries and destroyed any casual connection between them and the death of victim (COC breaks)

Question 20

What is the element for medical cases that don’t break COC

1 case

Answer 20

R v Smith

• Facts: D stabbed V twice. Brought to hospital, medical staff pressured and didn’t realise she V had a pierced lung and gave wrong treatment
• Held: the initial wound was still the operating cause and a substantial cause can be said is the wound. D was dismissed
  (COC didn’t break)

Question 21

What are the elements for medical cases breaking COC

2 cases

Answer 21

R v Cheshire

• Facts: Cheshire shot a man, V taken to hospital. Doctors inserted a tracheotomy tube. Initially was beneficial, but few weeks latter, it narrowed near the location where the tracheotomy pipe had been inserted
• Held: Procedure is expected to have some risk, treatment must be so independent, making the accused’s contribution as insignificant (COC breaks)

R v Jordan

• Facts: D stabbed V who was taken to hospital and treated. Died and was found that the wound healed and the V died from the doctors administering a drug which V had originally shown intolerance to and caused his lungs to clog
• Held: COC broke, negligent treatment was ‘palpably wrong’(so independent/seperate/overwhelming) and quashed the defendant’s conviction (COC breaks)