Causation Flashcards
For some crimes, it is necessary to show not only that D performed an act, but that the act caused a particular consequence (10 cards)
Factual (‘but for’) causation
R v Dyson: V was dying from meningitis when D injured him and V died as a result of the injures; D caused the death because but for D’s actions V would not have died at the time and place that he did
R v White: D put poison in V’s drink, but V suffered a heart attack unrelated to the poison- D was not a ‘but for’ cause of V’s death
Legal causation
R v Wallace: whether “the accused’s acts can fairly be said to have made a significant contribution to the victim’s death”
R v Hughes: more than a “de minimis or minimal” cause
R v Smith: “operating and substantial cause of death” rather than “merely part of the history”
Novus Actus Interveniens
(a) a free, voluntary and informed act, or
(b) an act which was not reasonably foreseeable
which renders the original act no longer a significant cause of the result
Free, voluntary and informed act
R v Kennedy: D prepared a syringe of heroin for V, who died shortly after injecting himself; V’s voluntary and informed act in injecting himself broke the chain of causation- NAI found
R v Wallace: D threw sulphuric acid on V, who sustained terrible injuries as a result; he sought euthanasia- NAI not found, as the acts were not voluntary; the acts of the doctors were “closely, indeed inexplicably, bound up with” D’s acts
R v Rebelo: D sold food supplements to V who died after taking them, distinguished from Kennedy as V was suffering with addiction and mental illness and so was not acting freely- NAI not found
R v Pagett: D caused his girlfriend’s death after he kidnapped her and she was shot by police marksmen trying to secure her safety; they were acting justifiably and in line with their legal obligation
Not reasonably foreseeable act
R v Roberts: V jumped out of the car after D made indecent suggestions and touched her coat; she was acting out of terror and so not acting freely; her act could have reasonably been foreseen as the consequences of D’s act- no NAI
R v Marjoram: objective question- whether it was reasonably foreseeable to an ordinary person
No longer a significant cause
R v Cheshire: rare but unknown complication from procedure, still no NAI; “it will only be in the most extraordinary and unusual case” that NAI will be found
R v Jordan: V given a drug in hospital to which he was allergic; treatment was “abnormal”, “palpably wrong”- NAI found
Omissions + think skull rule
R v Blaue: D stabbed V, who refused to a blood transfusion because she was JW; “The question for decision is what caused her death. The answer is the stab wound. The fact that the victim refused to stop this end coming about did not break the causal connection between the act and death.”
R v Watson: is it no defence for D to say that the injuries or death were caused by the physical condition of the victim
Arguments against holding people accountable for their consequences
Ashworth: the law should punish acts which endangered others- whether any harm actually resulted being a matter of chance
Alexander and Kessler Ferzan: “If the agent does not foresee harm, he is not held responsible for harm just because he caused it. In other words, causation without choice does not matter”
Arguments that consequences matter
Gardner: “If our successes do not count, then neither do our endeavours. With no inputs or outputs, there is nothing left of us as moral agents”
Honore: it is part of treating people as human that both the good and bad consequences of their actions are taken into account
Robinson: those who argued that consequences should not matter exist only in academia; “I know of no jurisdiction that actually takes such a view”
Same blame different wrong
Edwards and Simester: those who try and those who succeed commit different wrongs; they should be convicted of different crimes, but they are equally blameworthy and so should be punished to the same degree
