Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

GDL Year 2 - CRIMINAL LAW > 1 - Causation > Flashcards

1 - Causation Flashcards

1
Q

Causation Scheme

A
  1. Factual causation
    But for Test - (White, Dyson)
  2. 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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Test for Factual Causation

including cases

A

But for test - BUT FOR the D’s actions, the necessary consequence would not have occurred.

  • R v White
  • R v Dyson
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

R v White

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

R v Dyson

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Legal causation - structure (including cases)

A

Test: did D’s culpable act bring about the result? Court may have regard to various factors (esp re NAIs)

  1. Culpable act? (Dalloway, Marchant)
  2. Multiple causes? (Benge)
  3. 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]

  1. P - personal characteristics (Hayward, Blaue, McKechnie)
  2. R - refusal of medical treatment (Holland, Blaue, Dear)
  3. E - escape cases (Roberts, Williams & Davies)
  4. S - suicide/euthanasia (Dear, Report of Coronor’s Court 1996, Wallace)
  5. S - self admin/supply of drugs (Kennedy, Evans)

N - natural events

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Case & quote regarding Q of causation generally…

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Element A of legal causation:

Culpable act test and cases

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

R v Dalloway

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

R v Marchant

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Note on the 2 causation cases, Dalloway and Marchant…

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Element B of legal causation:

What if there are multiple causes? + cases

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Element C of legal causation:

Substantial and operative cause of result + cases

A

D’s act has to be a ‘Substantial and operative cause’ of the result - this wording comes from cases Chesire and Smith

  1. Substantial (refer to the 3 cases)
    - Cato
    - Pagett
    - Hughes
  2. 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Establishing a substantial cause (element C of legal causation) - what principle is relevant, and what cases?

A

De Minimis Principle

Cato
Pagett
Hughes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

De Minimis Principle

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

R v Cato - re de minimis principle/’substantial’ cause of result

A

“An act or omission which is not a de minimis, trifling one”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

R v Pagett - re de minimis principle/’substantial cause of result’

A

Robert Goff LJ - “enough that act contributed significantly to the result”

17
Q

R v Hughes - re de minimis principle/’substantial cause of result’

A

Lord Hughes & Lord Toulson - a substantial cause of result is one which is: “more than de minimis, more than trivial”

18
Q

Establishing an operative cause - test - structure - memory keys?

A

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
19
Q

Medical negligence cases - to establish operative cause/NAI assessment - cases?

A

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.

20
Q

R v Smith

A

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.

21
Q

R v Chesire

A

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.
22
Q

Acts of 3rd party - to establish operative cause/NAI assessment - cases?

A

R v Pagett

23
Q

R v Pagett

A

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.

24
Q

Acts of victim - to establish operative cause/NAI assessment - cases?

A

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
25
Q

R v Hayward

A

D hit his wife and was chasing her.
She had a weak heart and died.
D was guilty for her murder - no break in chain of causation - thin skull rule: must take your victim as you find them.

26
Q

R v Blaue - re personal characteristics

A

Jehovah’s witness case - D stabbed V, V needed a blood transfusion but refused on account of religious beliefs.
V died.

No chain broken.
LJ Lawton - take your victim as you find him means the whole man: body AND mind.

27
Q

R v McKechnie

A

V Attacked, sustained brain injury. Doctors discovered he also had a stomach ulcer. Could not treat stomach ulcer due to brain injury. he died.

Held: no break in chain - take your victim as you find them.

28
Q

R v Holland

A

D injured V’s fingers. V told by doctor they should be amputated. V refused to allow this. Went septic, died.

Held: Did not break chain of causation.

Note, though, case is from 1880s - would have been quite reasonable at the time to refuse amputation.

29
Q

R v Blaue - re refusal of medical treatment

A

Jehovah’s witness case… refused blood transfusion and died - no break in chain.

30
Q

R v Dear - re refusal of medical treatment

A

Stabbed, medical treatment provided, wounds re opened.
V could’ve gone to a doctor/called ambulance - instead went to forest to die.

Case confirmed that refusal of medical treatment did not break chain of causation.

31
Q

R v Roberts

A

Made sexual advances at passenger. she jumped out of car. Test: was it reasonably foreseeable that she would do that, or was it “so daft and unexpected” to not be deemed as such (from Stephensen LJ).

32
Q

R v Williams & Davies

A

Hitch hiker case - jumped out of car. Court held that in determining what is reasonably foreseeable jury should step into shoes of D, and think what would have been reasonable for that specific V to do: visible characteristics (not as far as thin skull rule).

33
Q

R v Dear - re suicide

A

Stabbed, treated, wounds opened - went to forest to die. No break in chain: he died from the original wound inflicted by D.

Note - re suicide cases - apply reasonably foreseeable test from Roberts and Williams & Davies if case involves decision to commit suicide after D injures V and V has healed. e.g. D injures V’s fingers, she commits suicide after bc she used to be a professional pianist.

34
Q

Coroner’s Court Report 1996

A

Old man killed himself after being robbed by builders. Court held that this did not break chain of causation - builders were liable.

35
Q

R v Wallace

A

Euthanasia case - D injured ex boyfriend with sulphuric acid.
He went to Belgium to request euthanasia.
Immediate cause of death was lethal injection, not D’s acts.

Held: no break in chain of causation.
V’s decision to request euthanasia was not a meaningful one and could not be taken to break the chain of causation as per Sharp LJ. This was considered an involuntary decision by the court.

36
Q

What test to apply to cases where V commits suicide after injuries inflicted by D have healed - after the fact? e.g. pianist who can never play piano again bc D injured her hands.

A

Was this action reasonably foreseeable?
From Roberts and Williams & Davies.

Refer to Report by Coroner’s Court 1996 also.

37
Q

R v Kennedy

A

Gave V syringe of heroin. V died. Kennedy not liable bc V was a ‘fully informed and responsible adult’ acc to Lord Bingham.

Distinguish R v Evans/R v Ruffell (omission cases)

38
Q

R v Evans

A

Omission case -
Sister and mother let V die after giving V syringe of heroin - sister was held responsible bc she created a dangerous situation for V and did not do anything to remedy it - she was a heroin addict herself and knew the signs of overdose. She failed to get medical assistance for her sister.

GDL Year 2 - CRIMINAL LAW (6 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions