Causation

Question 1

Conditio sine qua non

Answer 1

1. Every condition which cannot be eliminated from this set of factors without eliminating the result that occurred is regarded as a legal cause
2. Over-inclusive because for many results, a multitude of factors will come into play
3. Under-inclusive because because certain causes are sufficient on their own but yet another alternative would be sufficient too (Cause A would have the same result as cause B - Which one is relevant?)

Question 2

Theory of proximate cause

Answer 2

The cause the closest to the result

Question 3

Theory of adequate causation

Answer 3

1. The cause which has a tendency, according to human experience and in the ordinary course of events, to be followed by a consequence of this sort
2. Requires foreseeability and probability

Question 4

What about contributory causes? NL

Answer 4

1. ‘Reasonable attribution’  Can the result be reasonably attributed to the offender’s conduct?
2. The conduct need not be the sole cause as long as a causal link can be established beyond reasonable doubt
3. Take the victim as it is (for medical preconditions)

Question 5

What about contributory causes? EN

Answer 5

1. Accepts that contributory causes need not stand in the way of establishing a causal link
2. Take the victim as it is (for medical preconditions)

Question 6

What about contributory causes? GR

Answer 6

1. Uses the condition sine qua non where it need not be the sole or main cause of a result as long as it is one of the number of causes
2. Take the victim as it is (for medical preconditions)

Question 7

What about intervening causes?

Answer 7

1. Naturally occurring interventions can break the chain of causation if they are extraordinary and not reasonably foreseeable
2. The victim’s conduct breaks the chain of causation if it was not foreseeable and does not fall within the range of reactions which could have reasonably been expected from a victim in that situation - Taking into account the age, mental capacities and sex of the victim
3. Medical interventions will not break the chain of causation unless the standard of treatment fell far below what is reasonably expected

Question 8

How are intervening causes dealt with under each jurisdiction?

Answer 8

1. NL - Refusal of medical treatment is deemed understandable where the injuries are very severe
2. EN - ‘Take the victim as it is’ includes the victim’s decisions
3. GR - The causal link is not broken unless the victim’s decision not to refuse treatment is considered daft