Causation

Causation will be relevant in result crimes. That is when it must be shown that D's (Defendant) conduct resulted in a particular outcome.  In most cases, there will be no issue of causation to consider. The facts will make it obvious. However, when causation needs to be proven you must follow the steps below. 

This is what you will need to include to get your A01 marks but make sure you only include what is relevant to the case. 

A01 points 

• The prosecution  must show that the defendant was both factually and legally  culpable for the  result or consequence.

Step 1: 

FACTUAL CAUSATION: 

It is necessary to firstly ask if the defendant in  fact caused  the consequence, In order to do this we use something called the "but for test"

The but for test asks:  would the consequence have happened 'but for' D's action? 

•  In simple terms we want to know if something happened because of what the defendant did or if it would have happened even without D's action. If the outcome would only have happened because of D's action factual causation is met, if it would have happened anyway causation is not met. 

R v White

FACTS: D put cyanide into his mother's lemonade  drink, but she died of heart failure before drinking the poison. The answer to the question 'But for what the defendant did would she have died?'  is: 'No';  she would have even if he had not poisoned her drink. So he did not factually cause her death. 

HELD: D was acquitted of murder  because he had not factually caused his mother's death.

Factual causation is the first step but it is not enough.  Just because someone is the factual cause of an outcome, this does not man they are legally culpable (guilty). This is why we must also prove legal causation. 

(See video lesson 1) 

Step 2: 

LEGAL CAUSATION

In order to stablish legal causation we have to apply two principles. Keep in mind that the question of legal causation is linked to culpability and ask yourself if someone should be legally responsible for the consequence. 

The Di Minimis principle : Is there more than a minimal link between D's action and the consequence? 

• Having   established causation in fact it is also necessary to establish causation in law.
• Causation in  fact does not always mean there will be causation in law. 
• The defendant’s action must also be more than “a minimal cause of the consequence”. This is known as the ‘de minims  principle’ and was established in (R v Kimsey 1996)

R v Kimsey 1996

FACTS: The defendant was convicted of   causing death by dangerous driving. A close friend of the defendant overtook him and the two engaged in a high-speed chase. The friend, not in control of  her car, struck an oncoming car, and was killed. The prosecution case was that the appellant’s driving had caused the friend’s loss of control. 

HELD: The recorder told unforeseeablehat they did not have to be sure that the appellant’s   driving ‘was the principal, or a substantial, cause of the death, as long as   you are sure that it was a cause and that there was something more than a   slight or a trifling link’.

See Video lesson 2

(See video lesson 2) 

Step 3: 

Novus actus interveniens (NAI): Has something happened that broke the chain of causation? 

The  prosecution must then prove that there was no novus actus interveniens  (NAI) or ‘new intervening act’ which would break the chain of causation.  An  intervening act is something that breaks the chain of events so it cannot be said one event caused the other.

 For example, if someone is stabbed in the leg and is taken to hospital in an ambulance and the ambulance is blown up by a terrorist killing everyone onboard it cannot be said the stab wound killed the person. The terrorist action constitues a novus actus interveniens  or a break in the chain of causation. 

Situations that are NOT usually NAI in other words do not break the chain of causation. 

• Medical Negligence:  Medical negligence will not usually break the chain of causation (R v Smith) (R v Cheshire) unless negligence was  so potent and independent of D’s  act, as to render D’s conduct insignificant (R v Jordan). So negligence will need to be very bad before it breaks the chain. 

• Foreseeable acts of the victim (R v Roberts). If the victim does something which is foreseeable in the circumstances then their action does not break the chain of causation.  For example, a victim injures themselves while trying to scape from a violent attack. 

• Switching off a Life-support machines: This will  not usually break the chain of causation (R v Malchereck & Steel -1981) unless this is done by a non-medical person (obiter). However,  this was just a comment made in the case we do not know for sure what would happen if a non-medical person switched off life support but it is likely that this would be a NAI. 

• Victim’s self-neglect or suicide R v Wallace [2018] *NEW LAW 

• Foreseeable actions of a third party (R v Paggett). If the consequence is caused by the foreseeable actions of a third party these actions will not break the chain of causation. 

• The thin-skull rule – If the victim's action or consequence is unforseeable due to a particular vulnerability you must take your victim as you find them. So if the victim is vulnerable for example "has a thin skull" and this is the reason for the outcome, this vulnerability is not a NAI (R v Blaue 1975)

Situations that ARE usually NAI in other words situations that do break the chain

• Daft and unforeseeable acts of the victim (R v Williams): If the victim does soemthing  so 'daft' a reasonable person would not have foreseen it, their actions will break the chain of causation. asdf 

• Free, deliberate and informed act of the victim:  If a victim makes a free an deliberate choice such as committing suicide or taking drugs their action will usually break the chain of causation i.e.Drugs cases: free & voluntary act of self-injection by victim (R v  Kennedy).  However, this principle has been brought into question by the latest decision in R v Wallace [2018]. 

• Unforeseeable acts of a third party (R v Paggett): If a third party does something a reasonable person would not have foreseen this will usually break the chain of causation. 

(See video lesson 3)