actus reus - causation

Causation

A two part test that determines whether an act caused the consequence

Factual Causation

Defendant, "D", can only by guilty if the consequences would not have happened '𝐁𝐔𝐓 𝐅𝐎𝐑' D's actions

𝐏𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐭𝐭

D used his girlfriend as a human shield whilst being fired at by the police.

PoL: D was guilty because '𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫' him using her as a human shield, she would have died. Factual causation was present.

𝐖𝐡𝐢𝐭𝐞

D tried to poison and kill his mother however she died of a heart attack before it could take effect.

PoL: '𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫' D trying to kill his mother, she would've died anyway. Guilty of attempted murder.

𝐇𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐬

D was driving faultlessly but without insurance and a full driving license. V, who was under the influence of heroin, died when crashed his car into D. D was charged under the Road Traffic Safety Act 1988 with causing death by driving without a license and uninsured.

PoL: D was not guilty because although '𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫' D driving on the road there would have been no collision, D was not at fault because his driving was not open to criticism. Therefore he did not cause the consequence.

Legal Causation

Defendant's action must be more than a minimal cause of harm (more the de minimis) even if there is more than one person who caused the harm

𝐊𝐢𝐦𝐬𝐞𝐲

D was involved in a high-speed car chase with a friend. D lost control and the other driver was killed. Even though D wasn't the only cause, her actions were more than de minimis

PoL: D was convicted as the driving did not have to be the 'principle' or substantial cause of harm as long as D's actions were more than a 'slight and trifling link'

𝐁𝐥𝐚𝐮𝐞

Victim stabbed by the defendant and due to her religion, she refused a blood transfusion.

PoL: If there is something unusual about the physical or mental state of the victim, that is unknown to D, it is irrelevant because D must 'take your victim as you find him'

Intervening Acts

There must be a direct and unbroken link between D's act and the consequence. If something happens after D's act that is sufficiently separate then it may break the chain.

The chain of causation can be broken by: '𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐫𝐝 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲'

𝐒𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐡

Soldier stabbed in the lung during barrack brawl. Dropped on the way to the medical centre thrice and yet respiration treatment worsened his condition. V died.

PoL: D's actions were the 'operating' and 'substantial' cause. The poor treatment 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 break the chain of causation

𝐂𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐫𝐞

V shot. Wounds were no longer life-threatening but died as a result of complications following a tracheotomy (throat surgery)

PoL: D's actions were more than the minimal cause of harm (de minimis).

Poor treatment did not break the chain of causation even though the original wounds were not operating at the time.

𝐉𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐚𝐧

The victim was stabbed but the wounds were healing well. V died in hospital after receiving an antibiotic

PoL: The intervening act was sufficiently different and serious by the medical staff

Palpably wrong treatment 𝐝𝐢𝐝 break the chain of causation.

𝐌𝐚𝐥𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐤

Victim placed on life-support machine after being seriously injured by D. The machine was switched off as V was brain dead.

PoL: Switching off the life machine machine did not break the chain of causation as there was no new act intervening (novus actus interveniens)

Victim's Own Act

If V reacts in a reasonable and proportionate way to D's actions, then any injury to V would be considered D's fault

𝐑𝐨𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐬

Driver made unwanted sexual advances to the V. V then jumped out of the car and was injured. D was charged with ABH.

PoL: The victim's act 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 break the chain of causation when it's a reasonable and proportionate response.

𝐖𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐦𝐬

V jumped out of a moving car due to an alleged attempt to steal his wallet. V broke his neck and dies and his actions were considered a novus actus interveniens.

PoL: V's act 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 break the chain of causation when V's reaction is unreasonable, not forseeable and disproportionate to the threat.