Causation Flashcards Preview

*ANEW-L-Actus Reus > Causation > Flashcards

Flashcards in Causation Deck (70)
Loading flashcards...
1

What 3 things must the prosecution show?

-D's conduct was the factual cause of that consequence
-it was the legal cause of the consequence
-there was no intervening acts which broke the chain of causation

2

The defendant can only be guilty if the consequence would not have happened '___ ___' the defendants conduct.

but for

3

Which case can the but for test be seen in operation?

Pagett 1983

4

What happened in the case of Pagett 1983?

D used pregnant girlfriend as human shield against police fire. V died. D was convicted of manslaughter

5

Why was Pagett 1983 guilty of manslaughter under the but for test?

because the girl would not have died but for him using her as a shield in the shoot-out

6

What case is the opposite to Pagett 1983?

White 1910

7

What happened in the case of White 1910?

D put cyanide in mothers drink intending to kill her. Mother died of a heart attack before she could drink it. D was not factual cause of dear, Guilty of attempted murder.

8

D put cyanide in mothers drink intending to kill her. Mother died of a heart attack before she could drink it. D was not factual cause of dear, Guilty of attempted murder.
What case is this?

White 1910

9

D used pregnant girlfriend as human shield against police fire. V died. D was convicted of manslaughter
What case is this?

Pagget 1983

10

What is the rule under legal causation?

the rule is that D can be guilty if his conduct was more than a 'minimal' cause of the consequence, but need not be a substantial cause.

11

In some cases under legal causation what have some stated that the conduct of D must be more than?

more than de minimis'

12

In Kimsey 1996 what did the COA say to the jury rather than 'de minimis'?

that the act must be 'more than a slight or trifling link'

13

What happened in the case of Kimsey 1996?

D was involved in car chase and the other driver died. D's actions were a substantial cause of death. COA upheld conviction.

14

What is the thin skull rule?

If the victim has something unusual about his physical or mental state which makes an injury more serious, then the defendant is liable for the more serious injury

15

What is an example of the thin skull rule?

if the victim has an unusually thick skull which means that a blow to the head gives him a serious injury then the defendant is liable for that injury. Even if the blow would only have caused bruising in a 'normal' person.

16

What happened in the case of Blaue 1975?

V, a Jehovahs witness, was stabbed by D and needed a blood transfusion. Her beliefs forbade this. V died. D was convicted of her murder

17

V, a Jehovahs witness, was stabbed by D and needed a blood transfusion. Her beliefs forbade this. V died. D was convicted of her murder
What case was this?

Blaue 1975

18

What is the chain of causation?

this is the direct link from the defendants conduct to the consequence.

19

What may break the chain of causation?

if something else happens after the defendants act or omission and if this is sufficient enough to be an intervening act

20

What is an example of a break in the chain of causation?

for example, D stabbed V. V taken to hospital. Ambulance carrying V crashes, V suffers from fatal head injuries.

21

How does the but for test create a problem from the intervening acts?

as arguably 'but for' the defendant the victim would not have been in that position in the first place for there to be an intervening act.

22

What 3 things can break the chain of causation?

-an act of a third party
-a victims own act
-a natural but unpredictable event

23

In order to break the chain of causation what must the intervening act be?

it must be so sufficiently independent of D's conduct and sufficiently serious

24

When may a defendant still be seen to have caused the actions of a third party?

if the third parties actions were foreseeable

25

Where the defendants conduct causes a foreseeable action by a third party then the defendant is likely to be held to have caused that consequence.
Which case was this principle applied to?

Pagett 1983

26

What is unlikely to break the chain of causation?

medical treatment

27

Although medical treatment is unlikely to break the chain of causation, how can it?

if it is so independent of the defendants acts and 'in itself so potent in causing death' that the defendants acts are insignificant.

28

Which 4 cases are used under Medical treatment ?

-Smith 1959
-Cheshire-1991
-Jordan 1956
-Malcherek 1981

29

What happened in the case of Smith 1959?

2 soldiers had a fight, D stabbed V. V was dropped on the way to medical centre, there staff made injury worse in attempt to resuscitate him and V died. D was convicted of his murder.

30

2 soldiers had a fight, D stabbed V. V was dropped on the way to medical centre, there staff made injury worse in attempt to resuscitate him and V died. D was convicted of his murder.
What case is this?

Smith 1959