causation

Categories of crimes

• conduct crimes

• state of affairs crimes

• result crimes

What are conduct crimes?

The prohibited behaviour itself forms the AR of the offence

What are the state of affairs crimes?

The AR is formed solely from the existence of a state of affairs

Winzar v chief constable of kent

Winzar v chief constable of kent

What are result crimes?

• The AR must result in a certain outcome

• E.g victim must die for there to be the AR of murder

What are the type types of causation?

• factual

• legal

What is factual causation?

• But for test

• The D can only be guilty if the consequence would not have happened 'but for' the D's conduct.

What are the cases for factual causation?

• R v Pagett

• R v white

• R v Hughes

R v pagett

CF: D held pregnant gf hostage, police called on him to surrender, D came out holding the girl in front of him firing at police, police returned fire and girl shot by police bullets.

CP: D convicted of manslaughter, pagett was guilty because the girl would not have died 'but for' him using her as a human shield.

R v white 🍋

• D put cyanide in mother's drink attempting to kill her

• She died of a heart attack before she could drink it

• D was not factual cause of her death

• So was not guilty of murder, but attempted murder

• Factual causation was not established

R v Hughes

• The Supreme Court held: factual causation is not necessarily enough on its own for liability.

• It is distinguished between 'cause' in the 'but for' sense without which a consequence would not have occurred, and 'cause' in the sense of something which was a legally effective cause of that consequence

What is legal causation?

There may be more than one act contributing to the consequence, some of these acts may be made by other people other than the D

What is the rule for legal causation?

• The D can be guilty if his conduct was more than a 'minimal' cause of the consq

• But the D's conduct need not be a substantial cause

• in some cases they state the conduct must be more than 'de minimus'

• R v Kimsey, C of A held: instead of using this Latin phrase de minimus it was acceptable to tell the jury it must be 'more than a slight or trifling link'

What are the cases for legal causation?

R v Kimsey

R v Smith

R v Kimsey

• d was involved in high speed car chase with friend

• she lost control and other driver was killed

• CP: D's driving did not have to be 'the principle, or a substantial cause of the death, as long as you are sure that it was a cause and that there must be smth more than a 'slight or trifling link'

Case for intervening acts (medical treatment)

R v Smith

R v Cheshire

R v smith case facts 🔪 🚑

• legal causation - 'operative & substantial' test

• 2 soldiers had a fight, one stabbed in lung by other, as V otw to medical station, he was dropped twice, delay

• The doctors gave the wrong treatment, making injury worse, and he died.

R v Smith CP

• D was guilty as the stab wound to V was still 'operating' and was a substantial cause of V death

• Court held: despite all these subsequent events, as the D stabbing the V was more than a minimal cause of the death, legal causation was present.

R v Cheshire

• D shot V in thigh and stomach, doctors put tube in V throat to help him breathe, they did this negligently and become infected

• Held: gunshot wounds inflicted by D were a significant cause of V's death.

• Medical negligence will not break the chain of causation unless it is so independent of the D's acts, and in itself so potent, that the jury regard the contribution made by D as insignificant

• this will only be in the most extraordinary and unusual circumstances

How can the chain of causation be broken?

1. An act of a third party

2. The V own act

3. A natural but unpredictable event

How to break chain of causation so the D is not responsible for the consequence?

• The intervening act must be sufficiently independent of the D's conduct + sufficiently serious

R v Jordan

• The defendant stabbed the victim. The victim was taken to the hospital where most wounds healed

• V death was caused by Doctors giving wrong antibiotic even though V had already shown intolerance to it

R v Jordan CP (chain of causation broken)

• Held: as treatment was palpably wrong + the wounds almost healed it could not be said the stab wound was a more than minimal cause of death Chain of causation broken and D was not liable for V death

Medical negligence will not break the chain of causation unless…

• Medical negligence will not break the chain of causation unless it is palpably wrong, extraordinary and unusual.

Thin skull rule (R v Blaue)

• D stabbed young girl w knife, stabbing pierced her lung and she needed a blood transfusion

• She refused as she was a Jehova's Witness + her religion forbade blood transfusions, she died next day

• D convicted of manslaughter but appealed that bc she refused the transfusion, it broke chain

What is the thin skull rule?

• The D must take V as he finds him

• This means if the V has something unusual about his physical or mental state which makes an injury more serious, then the defendant is liable for the more serious injury.

Thin skull rule (R v Roberts)

• D was liable for the result if it was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of his conduct, unless V's actions were so daft as to make V's own voluntary act