1 - Causation Flashcards
(38 cards)
Causation Scheme
- Factual causation
But for Test - (White, Dyson) - Legal causation
a. ‘Culpable’ act (Dalloway, Marchant)
b. Several acts? (Benge)
c. Operating and substantial cause (Smith, Chesire)
i. Substantial (de minimis principle - Cato, Pagett, Hughes)
ii. Operating
- Medical negligence
- Acts of 3rd party
- Acts of victim (PRESS)
(Personal characteristics
(Refusal of medical treatment
(Escape cases
(Suicide
(Self admin/supply of drugs)
- Natural events/other
Test for Factual Causation
including cases
But for test - BUT FOR the D’s actions, the necessary consequence would not have occurred.
- R v White
- R v Dyson
R v White
Factual Causation case (1/2)
W wanted to kill his mother - put poison in her tea.
Justice Bray - discussed how evidence showed she’d died of a heart attack, not from the poison. But for test could not be satisfied due to lack of conclusive evidence.
W convicted of attempted murder, not murder.
R v Dyson
Factual Causation case (2/2)
V dying of meningitis, D threw her (a child) down the stairs.
D charged w murder - argued that she would have died anyway.
V had died earlier than she would have from the meningitis due to her injuries.
Court held: any action which accelerates death is enough for factual causation.
Legal causation - structure (including cases)
Test: did D’s culpable act bring about the result? Court may have regard to various factors (esp re NAIs)
- Culpable act? (Dalloway, Marchant)
- Multiple causes? (Benge)
- Substantial & Operative cause of result? (Smith, Chesire)
a. Substantial (Cato, Pagett, Hughes)
b. Operative (MAAN)
M - medical negligence
A - acts of 3rd party (Pagett)
A - acts of victim [PRESS]
- P - personal characteristics (Hayward, Blaue, McKechnie)
- R - refusal of medical treatment (Holland, Blaue, Dear)
- E - escape cases (Roberts, Williams & Davies)
- S - suicide/euthanasia (Dear, Report of Coronor’s Court 1996, Wallace)
- S - self admin/supply of drugs (Kennedy, Evans)
N - natural events
Case & quote regarding Q of causation generally…
R v GIRDLER
Facts: D driving on highway, collided with a taxi, driver veered into next lane hit another car. Driver of collision vehicle and taxi driver died.
Held: D charged w death by dangerous driving. CoA applied reasonably foreseeable test here (Roberts, Williams & Davies).
Conclusion: if given fact pattern does not fit precedents - apply reasonably foreseeable test - but:
LJ Hooper - “causation is not a single concept to be mechanically applied” - must pay regard to the context of the case in Q.
Similarly: Lord Hughes & Tolson - in R v Hughes - stated that which test to apply (reasonably foreseeable, or free, informed deliberate act tests) was a v context-specific Q.
Element A of legal causation:
Culpable act test and cases
Culpable act test (Smith & Hogan) - a proscribed result is not attributable to D if the culpable element in his conduct in no way made a relevant contribution to the result.
R v Dalloway - horse & cart driver not holding onto reigns, child ran into road
R v Marchant - forklift/motorcyclist case
R v Dalloway
D driving horse and cart without holding reigns, child ran into road, died.
Held - child would have died anyway, whether or not D had been holding reigns or not. His culpable act did not make a relevant contribution.
R v Marchant
D driving forklift, motorcyclist collided w it. D should have covered forks of vehicle.
Held that motorcyclist would have died upon impact anyway. D’s act did not make relevant contribution to the result.
Note on the 2 causation cases, Dalloway and Marchant…
Both can also be applied to establish factual causation!
But Smith & Hogan refer to them to prove the ‘culpable act’ element of legal causation - i.e. to discuss whether D’s act made a relevant contribution to the result.
Element B of legal causation:
What if there are multiple causes? + cases
R v Benge - D does not need to be the sole cause.
Facts: B was a foreman of railway track layers. He ordered track work, train came, deaths occurred.
Held: he was not the sole cause (train driver not paying attention, man with flag to warn train driver went to wrong spot), still, legal causation was established as it was held that D did not need to be the sole cause and he had been a major cause.
Element C of legal causation:
Substantial and operative cause of result + cases
D’s act has to be a ‘Substantial and operative cause’ of the result - this wording comes from cases Chesire and Smith
- Substantial (refer to the 3 cases)
- Cato
- Pagett
- Hughes - Operative (must prove whether there was a NAI or not)
- M - medical negligence
Smith
Chesire
- A - acts of 3rd party
Pagett - A - acts of victim
P - personal characs (Hayward, Blaue, McKechnie)
R - refusal of medical treatment (Holland, Blaue, Dear)
E - escape cases (Roberts, Williams & Davies)
S - suicide/euthanasia (Dear, Coroner’s Court Report 1996, Wallace)
S - supply of drugs/self admin of drugs (Kennedy, Evans) - N - natural events
Establishing a substantial cause (element C of legal causation) - what principle is relevant, and what cases?
De Minimis Principle
Cato
Pagett
Hughes
De Minimis Principle
Relevant to establish ‘substantial’ element of Element C of legal causation (D’s act was a substantial and operative cause of the result)
Principle is: D’s acts must have materially contributed to the result - they cannot be too minute.
Refer to:
Cato, Pagett, Hughes
R v Cato - re de minimis principle/’substantial’ cause of result
“An act or omission which is not a de minimis, trifling one”
R v Pagett - re de minimis principle/’substantial cause of result’
Robert Goff LJ - “enough that act contributed significantly to the result”
R v Hughes - re de minimis principle/’substantial cause of result’
Lord Hughes & Lord Toulson - a substantial cause of result is one which is: “more than de minimis, more than trivial”
Establishing an operative cause - test - structure - memory keys?
In discussing operative cause element - point is to establish whether there was a Novus Actus Intermediens (NAI) or not.
i.e. did something break the chain of causation, or not?
MAAN
A - PRESS
Medical negligence Act of 3rd party Act of vic - Personal charac - Refusal of med t - Escape - Suicide/euthanasia - Self admin of drugs/supply of drugs Natural event
Medical negligence cases - to establish operative cause/NAI assessment - cases?
R v Smith - Barack fight case - soldier held liable for V’s death despite that medical negligence was involved (nurses failed to tend to him in time and left him in wrong position so he suffocated)
R v Chesire - C shot victim 2x, had surgery, later needed breathing tube inserted. Scar tissue formed and he was suffocating. Medical negligence led to his death. Did not break chain: C still liable.
R v Smith
Barack room brawl - soldier held liable for V’s death despite that medical negligence was involved (nurses failed to tend to him in time and left him in the wrong position so he suffocated as blood filled his lungs).
LJ Parker - only if the second cause (medical negligence) is so overwhelming to make the original cause “part of history” can the chain be broken.
R v Chesire
C shot V 2x, after surgery he developed breathing problems, needed a tube in his windpipe. Scar tissue began growing, he began to suffocate. Nurses did not believe him - thought it was anxiety.
Medical negligence caused his death. Was chain broken?
Held: Bedlam LJ
- Treatment provided with the care and skill of a competent medical professional does not break the chain.
- acts of medics can conceivably be so extraordinary to break the chain - but this is v unlikely.
- Quoted Professors Hart and Honorare - treatment below competent medical professional’s standards is unfortunately too frequent for it to generally be considered extraordinary.
Acts of 3rd party - to establish operative cause/NAI assessment - cases?
R v Pagett
R v Pagett
Police shot at pregnant girlfriend Pagett was hiding behind as self defence (Pagett fired first). Girlfriend died.
Robert Goff LJ - test: was the third party’s act free, informed and deliberate? If yes, chain broken.
Conclusion: no break in chain.
Goff also said: self defence is involuntary act caused by Pagett’s acts himself. Therefore he is guilty of murder.
Acts of victim - to establish operative cause/NAI assessment - cases?
P - personal characteristics (thin skull rule)
- R v Hayward
- R v Blaue
- R v McKechnie
R - refusal of medical treatment
- R v Holland
- R v Blaue
- R v Dear
E - escape
- R v Roberts
- R v Williams & Davies
S - suicide/euthanasia
- R v Dear
- Report from Coroner’s court 1996
- R v Wallace
S - supply of drugs/self admin of drugs
- R v Kennedy and R v Ruffell
- Distinguish R v Evans
