Causation

Front 1

The two forms of causation are..

Back 1

Factual and Legal

Front 2

Factual causation is also referred to as the

'_ _ _ - _ _ _' test

Back 2

'But for' test

Front 3

How is the but for test used? (put it into a

sentence)

Back 3

But for the defendants actions the harm would not have occured

Front 4

Give a case example that illustrates the use of factual causation and the 'but for' test

Back 4

R v White (1910)

Defendant attempts to poison mother with

cyanide. Mothers dies of heart attack that was unrelated to the poison. Defendant did not cause death i.e 'but for' his actions she would have died anyway.

Front 5

Explain 'Legal causation'

Back 5

Legal causation is when a cause is the

'substantial and operating cause' that is to say..

something that significantly contributes to the outcome.

Front 6

Give a case example of where the defendant's actions were deemed a 'substantial and

operating cause'

Back 6

Smith (1959)

A Soldier was stabbed in a fight with another

soldier and then received thoroughly bad medical treatment. Despite the bad medical treatment the stab wound was the primary cause of death - it was the substantial and operating cause.

Front 7

Give a case example of where the defendant's actions were deemed a 'significant' cause

Back 7

Cheshire (1991)

The victim was shot, but died as a result of rare complications caused by a breathing tube inserted by doctors. The defendant was still found guilty however because the treatment was for injuries caused by him.

Front 8

What does 'novus actus interveniens' mean?

Back 8

New intervening act

Front 9

Explain what an intervening act is.

Back 9

Something unforeseeable and/or so

overwhelming as to invalidate the initial actus reus

Front 10

Give a case example where the cause of death was predictable and did not amount to an

intervening act.

Hint: Police returning fire and killing a hostage

Back 10

Pagett (1983)

Front 11

In cases of medical interventions that go wrong and cause death how bad does the treatment have to be to amount to an intervening act that breaks the chain of causation?

Back 11

The intervening act must be the substantial and operating cause of death and/or be so

significant as to render the original harm

insignificant.

Front 12

Give a case example of where poor medical treatment did not amount to an intervening act.

Back 12

Smith (1959)

A Soldier was stabbed in a fight with another

soldier and then received thoroughly bad medical treatment. Despite the bad medical treatment the stab wound was the primary cause of death - it was the substantial and operating cause.

Front 13

Give a case example of where poor medical treatment was so bad that it amounted to an

intervening act.

Back 13

R v Jordan (1956)

Victim suffered a serious injury but made a good recovery. Whilst in hospital the victim received an injection of a drug to which he was allergic and subsequently died. Doctors confirmed the original injury was not the cause of death.

Front 14

In cases where a victim injures themselves whilst trying to escape harm caused by another (known as 'escape cases') what is the general rule?

Back 14

If the victims actions are foreseeable then harm they cause themselves in trying to escape will not break the chain of causation i.e the attacker will be liable for their injuries.

Front 15

Give a case example of where a victim suffered injuries whilst trying to escape and the attacker was found liable for the harm.

Back 15

Roberts (1971)

Victim jumped out of a moving car to avoid

unwanted sexual advances made by the

defendant which resulted in the victim suffering injuries. It was

foreseeable that someone might do this to avoid a sexual assault.

Front 16

Give a case example of where a victim suffered injuries whilst trying to escape and the attacker was not found liable for the harm.

Back 16

Williams (1992)

Victim (a hitchhiker) jumped out of a moving

vehicle when the driver and passenger

attempted to steal his wallet. He suffered injuries but the defendants were not found liable for them. It could not be predicted he would jump out of a moving car in this instance.

Front 17

What is meant by the 'thin skull' rule?

Back 17

You must take your victim as you find them. A victims pre-existing vulnerabilities will not amount to an intervening act.

The rule covers medical and mental conditions and even the victims beliefs and values.

Front 18

Provide a case which may be used to

demonstrate the thin skull rule.

Back 18

R v Blaue (1975)

The victim was stabbed and required a blood transfusion that would save her life. As a Jehovah's witness however this was against her religious

beliefs and therefore she refused and died as a result. Her choice did not amount to an intervening act and the defendant was liable.