General Elements of Liability and the Elements of a Crime: Causation

Question 1

In order to establish causation, what three things are required of the defendant’s conduct?

Answer 1

It must be:

• The factual cause of the consequence
• The legal cause of the consequence
• There must be no intervening act which breaks the chain of causation

Question 2

What are the two tests for proving factual causation?

Answer 2

• the ‘but for’ test

- the de minimis rule

Question 3

What case established the ‘but for’ test?

Answer 3

• White (1910)

Question 4

What happened in Dalloway (1847)?

Answer 4

• Defendant held not liable for running a child over with his cart as he would not have been able to stop the cart in time, even if he had been holding the reins

Question 5

What was the ruling in Paggett (1983)?

Answer 5

• Man convicted of manslaughter as the use of his 16 year old pregnant girlfriend as a human shield is what killed her (shot by police)

Question 6

What is the de minimis rule?

Answer 6

• The defendant’s actions must be more than just a minimal cause of the death but need not be substantial

Question 7

Name a case that illustrates the de minimis rule. How else was the rule referred to in this case?

Answer 7

• Kimsey (1996)

- There needs to be “more than a slight or trifling link”

Question 8

Legal causation can be proved by any of which three requirements?

Answer 8

• that the original act was an operative and substantial cause of the consequence
• that the intervening act was reasonably foreseeable
• the thin skull test

Question 9

Name two cases that illustrate the fact that medical treatment rarely breaks the chain of causation

Answer 9

• Smith (1959)

- Cheshire (1993)

Question 10

Name a case where medical treatment was seen to have broken the chain of causation. What happened?

Answer 10

• Jordan (1956)
  
  • Original wounds were nearly healed and the victim was given ‘palpably wrong’ treatment, so the defendant was not liable

Question 11

What is the key difference between Cheshire (1993) and Smith (1959), and Jordan (1956)

Answer 11

• In the first two the doctors were trying to save the victims’ lives. In Jordan, the injuries had virtually healed

Question 12

Which case showed that switching off a life support machine will not break the chain of causation?

Answer 12

• Malcherek (1981)

Question 13

What is the Latin term for an intervening act?

Answer 13

• Novus Actus Interveniens

Question 14

What can intervening acts be? (3)

Answer 14

• An act of a third party
• The victim’s own act
• A natural and unpredictable event

Question 15

What was decided in Pagett (1983) in terms of foreseeability?

Answer 15

• the action of police returning fire was foreseeable (the whole pregnant 16 year old human shield thing)

Question 16

What do the victim’s own acts have to be in order to not break the chain of causation?

Answer 16

• Reasonably foreseeable

Question 17

What was decided in Roberts (1971)? What happened?

Answer 17

• Escaping does not break the chain of causation, unless it is ‘daft’ in the eyes of the jury
• Man found guilty of ABH as the victim jumped out of his car to escape

Question 18

Name three cases where the victim’s act did not break the chain of causation

Answer 18

• Roberts (1971)
• Marjoram (2000)
• William (1992)

Question 19

What happened in Marjoram (2000)?

Answer 19

• Defendant forced their way into a girl’s room
• She either jumped or fell out of the window, sustaining life-threatening injuries
• Defendant convicted of GBH

Question 20

What happened in William (1992)?

Answer 20

• Hitchhiker died after jumping out of the defendants’ moving car (they were trying to rob him)
• Defendants convicted of constructive manslaughter

Question 21

What is the thin skull test? E.g?

Answer 21

• The defendant must take the victim as they find them
• If the defendant hits the victim over the head with a blow that would usually cause no real harm, but the victim has an unusually thin skull and dies, then the defendant is liable

Question 22

Name a case that illustrates the use of the thin skull test

Answer 22

• Blaue (1975)

Question 23

What happened in Blaue (1975)?

Answer 23

• Incel stabbed a woman four times after she refused to have sex with him
• She was a Jehovah’s witness and so refused a blood transfusion that would have saved her
• Defendant convicted of manslaughter - she died because he stabbed her, not because she was a Jehovah’s witness

Question 24

What are the three problems with causation?

Answer 24

• The “more than a slight or trifling link” referred to in Kimsey (1996) is very vague
• If the victim refuses treatment that would save them, should the defendant be held liable?
• The thin skull test means that the defendant can be convicted of murder with no intent to kill