Causation

Causation

the process of causing something to happen or exist

Factual Causation

Using the ‘But for’ test

R v White

• The Act: Cyril White put a fatal dose of cyanide into his mother’s evening glass of lemonade with the clear intent to kill her.

• The Result: His mother was found dead with the glass still three-quarters full.

• The Twist: A medical examination proved she died of a spontaneous heart attack before she could drink enough poison to kill her.

R v Pagett

• The Act: David Pagett took his pregnant girlfriend hostage and used her as a human shield while firing a shotgun at armed police officers.

• The Result: The police officers, acting in self-defence and in the dark, instinctively returned fire. Their bullets hit and killed the girl.

• The Issue: Pagett argued he didn't "cause" her death because he didn't pull the trigger—the police did. He claimed their shooting was an intervening act (novus actus interveniens) that broke the chain of causation

De minimis principle

a legal doctrine that disregards trivial, minor, or insignificant matters

Kimsey

• Facts: The defendant (Kimsey) and a friend were engaged in a high-speed car chase. During the chase, the friend lost control of her vehicle, swerved into oncoming traffic, and was killed. One of the victim's tyres was underinflated, which may have contributed to her losing control.

• Legal Issue: The defendant argued that his driving was not the "substantial" cause of death, as the victim's own driving and the faulty tyre were also major factors.

• Decision: The Court of Appeal upheld his conviction for causing death by dangerous driving. It ruled that the defendant's conduct does not need to be the principal or substantial cause of death

Dollaway

• The Facts: The defendant was driving a horse and cart down a public road. He was being negligent because he was not holding the reins; they were instead resting on the horse's back. A young child suddenly ran into the road and was killed by the cart.

• The Legal Issue: The defendant was clearly negligent by not holding the reins. However, the court had to determine if this specific negligence caused the death.

• The Evidence: Medical and expert evidence suggested that even if Dalloway had been holding the reins properly, he still would not have been able to stop the heavy cart in time to save the child.

The Thin Skull Rule

legal doctrine in tort and criminal law requiring a defendant to "take their victim as they find them"

Blaue

• The Facts: The defendant, Blaue, stabbed a young woman four times after she refused his sexual advances. She was taken to the hospital, where doctors informed her that a blood transfusion was necessary to save her life.

• The Refusal: As a practicing Jehovah’s Witness, she refused the transfusion on religious grounds, knowing that she would die without it. She died shortly after.

Novus Actus Interveniens

where a subsequent, independent event breaks the chain of causation between an original wrongful act and the final damage or consequence

R v Smith (1959)

• The Act: A soldier (Smith) stabbed a fellow soldier in the chest with a bayonet during a barracks fight.

• The Series of Errors:

  • On the way to the medical center, the victim was dropped twice by his comrades.

  • Once at the hospital, the medical staff failed to diagnose that his lung had been punctured and gave him treatment that was later described as "palpably wrong" and harmful.

• The Result: The victim died. Evidence suggested that if he had received proper medical care, his chances of recovery would have been as high as 75%.

R v Cheshire (1991)

• The Act: David Cheshire shot a man in the stomach and thigh during an argument in a chip shop.

• The Medical Treatment: The victim was taken to the hospital and given a tracheotomy (a tube in the windpipe) to help him breathe.

• The Result: Two months later, while his gunshot wounds were healing and no longer life-threatening, the victim died from respiratory complications caused by narrowing of the windpipe at the site of the tracheotomy scar.

R v Jordan

• The Act: The defendant stabbed the victim in the abdomen during a disturbance.

• Recovery: At the hospital, the victim's stab wound had largely healed and was no longer life-threatening.

• The Medical Errors:

  • Doctors administered the antibiotic terramycin, to which the victim had a severe allergic reaction.

  • Despite the reaction being noted and the drug initially stopped, another doctor resumed the treatment the following day.

  • The victim was also given "abnormal" amounts of intravenous fluids, which effectively waterlogged his lungs.

• The Result: The victim died of pneumonia caused by the treatment, not the original wound.

R v Roberts

• The Act: The defendant was driving a car and made aggressive sexual advances toward a young female passenger. He began pulling at her coat.

• The Reaction: Fearing she was about to be raped, the victim jumped out of the moving car while it was travelling at approximately 30 mph.

• The Result: She suffered several injuries from the jump. The defendant was charged with Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861

R v Williams

• The Act: The defendants picked up a hitchhiker. During the journey, they allegedly attempted to rob him at knifepoint.

• The Reaction: To escape the perceived threat, the hitchhiker jumped out of the car while it was travelling at approximately 30 mph.

• The Result: The victim hit his head and died. The defendants were convicted of manslaughter.