Causation Flashcards
(21 cards)
Fagan vs MPC
The basis for “continous acts,” in which Fagan, depite not initialy having the Mens Rea for the crime, he gained it whist the act was “continous,” therefore there is corispondance
Thabio Meli
“it’s said that too acts were done: first the attack in the hut; and, secondly, the placing of the body outside afterwards — and that they were continuous. Whist there was no Mens Rea upon the cause of death, the act itself was continuous.”
Miller
“Where D has initiated a source of danger to certain interests of others, D has a duty to take reasonable steps to advert the danger created, whether or not the danger was created willingly or even voluntarily by D.”
simular to church
White
A attempted to murder B, utaliing cyanide, however once teh Cyanide haf been injested B died of a heart attack, unrelated to the actions of A, therefore dspite the fact she died, he was only arrested for attempted murder,
this is the basis for the But-For-Principle of causation
Smith
D stabbed V a fellow soldier during a fight, V was carried to the med bay Badly being dropped multiple times, then was given no where near reasonable care by the doctors, if he was given regular treatment he likely would have lived. However, Ds conviction was rightly upheld, as his actions played a significant role in the death
Ones action must only hold more than De Minimalis
What is a Novus Actus
its an action which ‘intervenes’ to displace the current casual series, that might otherwise lead from D’s behaviour to the eventual harm. It is in essence a third party to the causal chain between D and V.
Bush v. Commonwealth
D shot V, V then proceeded to catch the scarlet fever off a doctor in the hospital, whist you could state ‘but for’ Ds actions V wouldn’t have been in the hospital, the catching of scarlet fever is “exceptional,” enough to free him of responsibility. This wouldn’t have been the case if V died of something more traditionally associated with that type of wound.
this is an example of Novus Actus
Master
D inflicted a number of stab wounds onto V, who had deep-vein thrombosis, this caused a pulmonary embolism from which she died, it does not matter whether D ought to have known about her condition because his role was still direct,
example of the Thin Skull rule
3 exceptions to Novus Actus
- Pre existing condtions
see master and the Thin Skull rule
-concurrent causes
if the contrubution of B causes death in Conjunction with natural factors then he can still be liable
-intended effects
natural causes arent Novus Actus if the intended goal was reached, eg a man who shots, misses and causes an avalance,
what conditions for human Novus Actus:
Free, deliberate and informed
Hughes
D was driving without a license or insurance, and V died in a fatal collision with D, but there was nothing bad about Ds driving, V on the other hand was drugged and tired.
After his initial conviction D took the case to the Supreme Court and they reinstated a similar idea to Dalloway, the but-for-clause must have related to a culpable act on behalf of the defendant.
the But-for-cause alone is not legal justification, or In the case of a man dying in a fatal road accident, the wife of the man who asked their neighbour to collect him from the store would be liable, which is illogical.
Dalloway 1847
A man drives on the highway with his reins loose around his horse instead of in his hands, a child ran into the road and was killed.
The judge asked the jury that though he was being negligent to not rule guilty if even with the reins he would have been unable to save the life. He must be Culpable, deserving of blame.
this was repealed by Williams
Cato
When he injected heroin into B, and shed died of a related infection, It was sufficient that the prosecution established that it was a A cause, provided it was a cause outside the de minimis range and bearing upon acceleration of the individuals death.
Williams 2010
The appellant was driving on a dual carriageway when a man stepped into the road right in front of him. He was unable to stop and the man was killed. The appellant was not speeding and had not in anyway been driving recklessly or without care. Two witnesses gave evidence that it would have been impossible to avoid hitting the man given the closeness to the car when he stepped out. However, at the time of incident, the appellant had no driving licence or insurance. He was convicted of causing death by driving without a licence under s.3ZB Road Traffic Act 1988. He appealed on two grounds:
- that the offence could not be committed without proof of fault in causing the death. His failure to have a licence and insurance was at fault but it wasn’t this that caused the death.
- Alternatively his driving, although a cause of death, was minimal in relation to the victim’s own action in causing death.
Appeal dismissed. His conviction was upheld. The offence was one of strict liability and therefore fault in causing death was not required. It was sufficient that his driving was a cause of death it need not be a substantial cause.
This was later repealed by Hughes
Enviromental Agency V. Empress Car Company
Empress car company was convicted for the crime of polluting local water supply. But they one who actually caused the polluting was a trespasser, under the orthodox system this free act does break the chain, the judge residing on the case, Hoffman; argued that justices should consider whether the act itself should be regarded as a normal cause of life or something extraordinary, he argued that trespassing such as this is relatively usual, and so the trespassers action doesn’t break the casual chain related to the defenders polluting
was later restricted by Kennedy No.2 to purely enviromental crimes
R v Kennedy - 2007
was held that as the victim was a fully informed and consenting adult, who had freely and voluntarily self-administered the drug without any pressure from the defendant, this was an intervening act. The chain of causation between the defendant’s act in supplying the drug and the victim’s death was therefore incomplete. The reasoning of the House was based on the need for the criminal law to respect free will and to treat the victim, being an adult of sound mind, as an autonomous individual. The defendant’s conviction was therefore overturned.
this restriced Empress to enviromental crimes
he was orignally charged under empress as, teh choice of B to inject themselves cant be seen as “extrodanary,”
The 3 establishing question for causation
Is Ds conduct a but for clause?
Is Ds conduct a legal clause?
Is there an intervening act between Ds conduct and the prohibited result?
Jordon
Jordan is in principle a simular case to Smith, however he was adquited, this is because the tab wound wasn’t playing an active role in the death when she died, it had healed and so it wasnt concurrant,
negligent medical treatment killed them, this case is heavily restricted
Chesire
Cheshire shot a man during the course of an argument. The victim was taken to hospital to have surgery and shortly after developed respiratory issues. The doctors inserted a tracheotomy tube, which remained in place for four weeks and initially improved the victim’s condition. Several days later the victim complained of respiratory issues, his condition soon worsened and he died shortly afterwards. The post-mortem found that the victim’s windpipe had narrowed near the location where the tracheotomy pipe had been inserted. Cheshire was subsequently charged with murder and convicted
unless the treatment was so independent the accused’s act to regard the contribution as insignificant.
Blaue
D stabbed V, V refused the blood transfusion that would have saved her life on the basis of her faith as a Jehovah’s witness,
D appeals saying that Vs refusal was unreasonable and broke the chain of causation.
However the court ruled under similar principle to the thin skull rule, stating that the religous orientation falls under the definition because we look at the not just the physical man, but the whole man, what killed them is the stab wound, there refusal for treatment does no changed that, it’s not the right of the attacker to claim the victims religious belief is daft.
Thin Skull rule includes not just physical factors
Stone v Dobinson
The jury were entitled to find that a duty of care was owed on the grounds that the victim was not only a lodger in the home of the defendants but also had closer ties to each. In Stone’s case, a duty of care was owed on the basis that she was a blood relative, whilst Dobinson had undertaken a duty of care by washing her and providing food.
This the case even though V was an adult and D’s wasnt of sound mind
