General knowledge

what is causation about

is about linking the defendant to the result. did the defendant actually cause the harm

what must the prosecution do for their case

prosecution must prove that the defendant is both the factual cause and legal cause of the injury

what two things do the prosecution have to prove for the defendant to be the cause of injury

factual and legal cause

briefly what does factual cause mean

did defendant actually cause the harm

briefly what does the legal cause mean

is it fair to blame the defendant

Example:

• D punches V

• V dies

👉 We must ask:
Did the punch actually cause the death?

If yes → D is responsible or not…..
If no → D is responsible or not...

If yes → D is responsible
If no → D is not responsible

what’s the definition of factual definition

Factual causation is established using the “but for” test, meaning that if the defendant had not acted in the way they did, the injury or death would not have occurred.

what test does factual causation use

the but for test

what does the but for test mean

But for what D did, would the harm have happened?

But for what the defendant did/ their actions, would the the harm have happened? If the harm would not have happened, so no, what does this mean

means the defendant DID cause the harm

But for what the defendant did/ their actions, would the harm have happened? If the harm would have happened, so yes, what does this mean

the defendant DID NOT cause the harm

what cases supports the but for factual causation test

R v White and R v Pagett

what does legal causation mean if the defendant has caused the harm in fact, what does the law ask

was the defendant more than a minimal cause

whats the definition of legal causation

means the defendant must be more than a minimal cause of the harm

the defendant must fulfil 3 requirements for legal causation

1- More than slight or trifling link

2- doesn’t have to be the main or only cause

3- just needs some blameworthiness

what are the cases that support legal causation

R v Kimsey andd R v Hughes

when is legal causation established …

if the defendant was more than the minimal cause of the harm and there was more than a slight or trifling link.

the chain of causation is like what

a timeline

for example, D hits V - V goes to hospital - V dies. what is this considered

a chain of events, like a timeline

for example, D hits V - V goes to hospital - V dies. For D to be guilty what must happen to the chain of events/causation

nothing must interrupt the chain, otherwise D may not be responsible

whats the key rule for the chain of causation

is that the chain must remain unbroken. If something interrupts it, D may not be responsible

whats the ‘definition’ of the chain of causation

the chain of causation is a sequence of events linking the defendant’s conduct to the result, which must remain unbroken by any intervening acts for liability to be established

the chain of causation is a s…….. of events l……. the defendant’s co…..t to the re….., which must r……unbroken by any i…… acts for l……to be e……

the chain of causation is a sequence of events linking the defendant’s conduct to the result, which must remain unbroken by any intervening acts for liability to be established

what are intervening acts

they’re acts that break the chain of causation

what do intervening acts mean

means that something new happens after the defendants act and that something new becomes the real cause of harm

what are the 3 intervening acts

1. medical treatment/ third party

2. victims own actions

3. acts of god

how does medical treatment/third party break chain of cusation

doesndt usually break the chain, unless its completely wrong or very serious

what cases supports chain of causation broken by medical treatment

R v Jordan