causation

Question 1

checkpoint

drag the terms to complete the four common law causation tests, per McHugh J in Royall v The Queen

Answer 1

• operating and substantialcause test
• natural consequence test
• reasonable foresight of the consequences test
• novus actus interveniens test

Question 2

checkpoint

a person is stabbed, severely weakening them. even if later medical mistakes worsen the injury, the stabbing itself remains a significant cause

which common law causation test, per mchugh j in royall v the queen is this an example of?

Answer 2

• the natural consequence test
• the operating and substantial cause test
• the reasonable foresight of the consequence test
• the novus actus interveniens test
• the accused’s actions were an operating (continuing) and substantial cause of the victim’s death

Question 3

checkpoint

john viciously assaults joan who runs away from john. fleeing john and feeling cornered, joan jumps from a balcony and dies.

which common law causation test, per mchugh j in royall v the queen is this an example of?

Answer 3

• the novus actus interveniens test
• the reasonable foresight of the consequence test
• the natural consequence test
• the operating and substantial cause test
• the victim’s death must result from the natural consequences of taking steps to escape from the accused

Question 4

checkpoint

van chased sam down the street with a knife with the hope that van would run in front of a car and die.

which common law causation test, per mchugh j in royall v the queen is this an example of?

Answer 4

• the operating and substantial cause test
• the novus actus interveniens test
• the reasonable foresight of the consequences test
• the natural consequence test
• the accused should have intended the victim to take the action they did or could have reasonably foreseen the possibility of that action

Question 5

checkpoint

sammy coward punches jinny on a night out. jinny falls backward, her head hitting the pavement at the same time as michaela’s boot which was extended to try and break jinny’s fall. The medical evidence suggests that the operative and substantial cause of death was the hitting of her head on her pavement. michalea’s misguided extending of her leg did not break the chain of causation.

which common law causation test, per mchugh j in royall v the queen is this an example of?

Answer 5

• the reasonable foresight of the consequences test
• the natural consequence test
• the novus actus interveniens test
• the operating and substaintial cause test

often used in conjunction with other test, the novus actus interveniens tests is used to assess whether the chain of causation has been broken

Question 6

causation in homicide offences

Answer 6

• all homicide offences have a common element of caustation - the act or omission of accused must have caused death
• causation is interpreted and applied according to its common law meaning
• the leading cases discussed in this lecture are both the sources of the law on causation and also demonstrate the application of the concept

woolmington v the dpp

Question 6

causation

Answer 6

causation means the accused’s conduct - act or omission - must lead to death of the person

stated in the language of elements of offences, causation links the physical and fault elements conduct – act or omission – to the physical element of
consequence – death

causation is required for all homicides

causation is based in the common law - the cases are the source of law -> they also illustrate its application

royall v the queen

Question 7

causation

the operating and substantial cause test

Answer 7

refers to a situation where a defendant’s actions significantly contributed to a harmful outcome, even if other factors were also involved

it means the defendant’s conduct was a substantial and continuing (operating) factor in the harm, not merely a minor or insignificant one

Question 8

causation

the natural consequence test

Answer 8

determines whether a defendant’s actions caused a specific outcome, such as a victim’s injury or death

it asks whether the outcome was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s conduct

if the outcome was a natural and probable result of the defendant’s actions, then causation is established

Question 9

causation

the reasonable foresight of the consequences test

Answer 9

assesses whether the harm or damage caused by an action was a reasonably foreseeable outcome of that action

in essence, it asks whether a reasonable person, in the same circumstances, would have foreseen the possibility of the specific harm occurring as a result of the action

this test helps determine if a causal link exists between the action and the harm, and if so, whether the person should be held responsible for the consequences

Question 10

causation

the novus actus interveniens test

Answer 10

or “breaking the chain of causation” test, is a legal principle used to determine if an intervening act or event is sufficient to relieve a defendant of liability for harm caused to a plaintiff

essentially, it assesses whether a new, independent event has occurred, severing the causal link between the defendant’s original negligent act and the ultimate injury

if the intervening act is deemed a novus actus interveniens, the defendant is no longer considered legally responsible for the subsequent harm