causation

what must prosecution prove in relation to causation

that the accused through an act omission or generations of a state of affairs caused the necessary result or consequence

what is the difference between factual and legal causation

factual asks whether the accused conduct caused the result for sure. legal asks whether the result is the fault of the accused in law (public policy and statues)

what might factual caution differ from legal

public policy considerations, fairness, justice and the rule on public behaviour may mean that the factual cause is not treated as the legal cause

what is a nous actus interveniens

an intervening act that breaks the chain of causation between the accuseds conduct and the prohibited result

what is the key question when deciding whether an intervening act breaks causation

whether the intervening act is sufficiently independent of the accused’s conduct to be regarded in law as the cause of death

does every act by a third party break the chain causation

no a third party act may form a normal link in the chain, particularly where it is a lawful well intentioned response to the situation created by the accused

causation test established in DPP v Davis 2001

the injuries caused by the accused must be related to the death, in more than a minimal way. The accused conduct need not be the sole cause of death

DPP v Davis

Davis assaulted the deceased who later died from heart failure caused by shock and pain. The court rejected speculative alternative explanations for the injuries and upheld the conviction

significance of DPP v dunne 2014

it confirmed that the Davis test applies even where the victim dies much later and medical treatment intervenes. Lawful and proper treatment did not break the connection between the shooting and death

what principles were confirmed in dunne v DPP

exceptionally negligent medical treatment may break causation, conventional treatment generally does not. Lawful withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining treatment does not break the chain if the OG injury remains an operating cause

DPP v Joel 2016

the accused’s acts or omissions must be substantial cause of death rather than merely contributing to death in more than a minimal way

why did the causation issue matter in DPP v Joel

the victim had a complex medical history. the court considered the more than minimal threshold too low for manslaughter and the appeal succeeded because the causation test had been blurred

significance of AGv McGrath 1960

humane and well intentioned actions by people taking an injured man to hospital formed a normal link in the chain and did not break causation

significance of DPP v O’Loughlin 2021

an intervening act must be a fresh act occurring after the accused conduct, rubbish already blocking a chute did not constitute a fresh intervening act

when can medical treatment break causation and what case

R v Jordan , where treatment is exceptionally wrong and is the direct and immediate cause of death the chain may be broken.

what is the test and case for the original wound

if the original wound remains an operating and substantial cause of death causation remains. the chain is only broken if the second cause is so overwhelming that the OG wound is nearly part of the history , R v smith

what contribution must the accused make - case

R v Cheshire - the accuseds acts need not be the sole cause of death, it is sufficient that they contributed significantly to the result

what is the eggshell skull rule - case

R v blaue - an accused must take their victim as they find them, the victims refusal of a blood transfusion because of religious beliefs did not break the chain of causation

what is the causation principle in R v Roberts

a victims reaction generally does not break the chain if it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the accuseds conduct.

what is the principle in R v Williams and Davis

when a victim escapes a threat, consider the threats gravity, forgeability and whether the presuppose is proportionate. a victim may make the wrong decision in the agony of the moment

significance of DPP v Murphy

causation can be inferred from sufficient circumstantial evidence even if the the precise mechanism of death remains uncertain

a victim dies after the accuseds assault and conventional medical treatment , what cases should you use

Davis for the Irish more than minimal test, dunne for delayed death and intervening medical treatment, smith and Cheshire as supporting English authorities

a victim dies after exceptionally negligent treatment, what case

R v Jordan, consider whether the treatment was so wrong that it broke the chain while applying the Irish approach of dunne

a victim remains alive for years after being shot then dies after lawful withdrawal of life support, has causation been broken

no. under dunne the original injury may remain an operating cause of death, the passage of time and lawful withdrawal do not automatically break the chain

a victim has a pre existing vulnerability that makes an injury fatal, can the accused escape liability because the victim was unusually vulnerable

not simply for that reason, the eggshell scull principle in Blaue requires the accused to take the victim as found

in a manslaughter case, the accused made only a tiny contribution to the death alsonside other causes , which test applies

Joel , the accused’s conduct must be a substantial cause of death not merely a more than minimal contribution