Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Sg5 Causation

    Uploaded by

    Brassette Balenciaga
    54 views2 pages
    This study guide discusses causation, which refers to establishing a causal link between the defendant's act and the resulting harm. There are two types of causation: factual and legal. Factual causation is evaluated using the "but for" test - asking whether the result would not have occurred but for the defendant's actions. Legal causation considers whether the defendant's conduct was an operating and substantial cause of the result, and whether an intervening act broke the chain of causation. Intervening causes that could break the chain include acts of third parties, acts of God, or acts of the victim. The defendant must take the victim as they find them under the thin skull rule.

    Original Description:

    Causation

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This study guide discusses causation, which refers to establishing a causal link between the defendant's act and the resulting harm. There are two types of causation: factual and legal. Factual causation is evaluated using the "but for" test - asking whether the result would not have occurred but for the defendant's actions. Legal causation considers whether the defendant's conduct was an operating and substantial cause of the result, and whether an intervening act broke the chain of causation. Intervening causes that could break the chain include acts of third parties, acts of God, or acts of the victim. The defendant must take the victim as they find them under the thin skull rule.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    54 views2 pages

    Sg5 Causation

    Uploaded by

    Brassette Balenciaga
    This study guide discusses causation, which refers to establishing a causal link between the defendant's act and the resulting harm. There are two types of causation: factual and legal. Factual causation is evaluated using the "but for" test - asking whether the result would not have occurred but for the defendant's actions. Legal causation considers whether the defendant's conduct was an operating and substantial cause of the result, and whether an intervening act broke the chain of causation. Intervening causes that could break the chain include acts of third parties, acts of God, or acts of the victim. The defendant must take the victim as they find them under the thin skull rule.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    UNIVERSITY OF GUYANA MS.

    ALEXIS DOWNES-AMSTERDAM
    FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES LL.B (Hons.) UWI; LL.M (Lond.)
    DEPARTMENT OF LAW ATTORNEY-AT-LAW

    CRIMINAL LAW I STUDYGUIDE 5


    CAUSATION
    Reading:
    o Williams, “Causation in Homicide” (1957) Crim. LR 429
    o Camps and Harvard, “Causation in Homicide – A Medical View” (1957) Crim. LR 582

    1. Introduction
    A causal link must be established between the actus reus and the result which has to occur for an
    offence to have been committed. See R v. Bracewell (1979) 68 Cr App R 44.

    Causation refers to the enquiry as to whether the defendant's act (or omission) caused the harm or
    damage. When the definition of an actus reus requires the occurrence of certain result, the
    prosecution must prove that it was the defendant's conduct which caused that result to occur.

    2. Types of causation
    There are two types of causation: factual causation and legal causation

    (a) Causation in Fact: the "But For" Test. It must be established that the particular result would
    not have occurred ‘but for’ the defendant’s action.
    R v White [1910] 2 KB 124
    R v Corion-Auguiste (2004) unreported
    R v Ireland [1997] 4 All ER 225
    R v. Bracewell (1979) 68 Cr App R 44
    R v. Dawson (1985) 81 Cr App R 150
    R v. Watson [1989] 1 WLR 684
    R v. Cato [1976] 1 WLR 110
    R v. Kimsey [1996] Crim. LR 518
    R v Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 27
    Carey [2006] EWCA Crim 17
    Instan [1893] 1 QB 450

    But what if the action of the defendant is not the only cause?
    R v. Hennigan [1971] 3 All ER 133

    (b) Causation in Law: It cannot be said that the defendant’s act caused a consequence if there is
    a new (intervening) act which breaks the chain of causation between the act of the defendant and
    the consequence.

    Whereas whether there was factual causation is a question of fact for the jury, it is a question of
    law as to whether a factual cause is capable of amounting to a legal cause of an event.
    (i) Operating and substantial cause - The defendant’s conduct must be an operating and
    substantial (or significant) cause of the result but it does not have to be the main or only
    cause.
    R v. Smith [1959] 2 QB 35
    R v Benge (1865) 4 F. & F 504
    Cato [1976] 1 WLR 110

    (ii) There must be no intervening act to break the chain of causation. The result must be
    attributable to the culpable act. See R v. Dalloway (1847) 2 Cox 273

    (iii) Thin skull rule (eggshell skull rule) - Under the thin skull rule the defendant must take
    his victim as he finds him.
    R v Hayward (1908) 21 Cox 692
    R v Holland (1841) 2 Mood. & R. 351
    R v Blaue [1975] 1 WLR 1411
    R v Woods (1921) 85 JP 272
    R v. Dear [1996] Crim LR 595

    3. Intervening causes
    A novus actus interveniens is a new intervening act which breaks the chain of causation. There are
    three types of intervening causes which need to be considered: third party intervention, act of God
    and act of the victim.
    R v Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279
    R v. Jordan (1956) 40 Cr. App. E. 152
    R v. Malcherek; R v. Steel [1981] 1 WLR 690
    R v. Cheshire [1991] 1 WLR 844
    R v. Mellor [1996] 2 Cr App R 245
    Southern Water Authority v. Pegrum [1989] Crim LR 442
    R v Roberts [1971] EWCA Crim 4
    R v Williams & Davis [1992] Crim LR 198
    R v. Corbett [1996] Crim LR 594
    R v Dear [1996] Crim LR 595
    Bush v Kentucky (1880) 78 Ky 268, CA (Kentucky)
    Airedale Health Authority v Bland [1993] 1 All ER 821
    The Harlot's Case (1560) 1 Hale PC 432
    DPP v Daley and McGhie (1980) AC 237
    DPP v K (a minor) [1990] 1 All ER 331

    You might also like