Causation (Actus Reus) Flashcards
(9 cards)
📌 Causation in Criminal Law — Actus Reus
🔑 Golden Rules to Remember
Factual causation → “But for” test → R v White.
Legal causation → Significant and operative → R v Smith, Cheshire.
Thin skull rule → Take victim as they are → R v Blaue, Dyson.
Victim’s reaction → Reasonable/unreasonable test → R v Roberts.
Third party acts → Foreseeability and proportionality → R v Pagett.
Medical negligence → Breaks chain only if palpably wrong → R v Jordan.
I. Factual Causation (“But For” Test)
R v White
“But for” D’s act, would V have died?
If yes → no factual causation.
E.g. Poison → Heart attack unrelated → Not factual cause.
II. Legal Causation (Significant and Operative Cause)
R v Smith
D’s act must be a significant and operative cause.
Poor medical treatment will not break chain unless independent and potent.
E.g. stabbing + bad treatment → Still liable.
R v Cheshire
Confirms Smith → Medical negligence breaks chain only if “extraordinary and unusual.”
E.g. wound still operative cause → D liable.
R v Jordan
Exception → Medical negligence broke chain (V recovering, drug palpably wrong).
D not liable as original act no longer life-threatening.
III. Victim Characteristics (Thin Skull Rule)
R v Blaue
“Take your victim as you find them.”
Refusal of life-saving treatment (religious) does not break chain → D liable.
R v Dyson
Accelerating death = causation.
Even if V terminally ill → bringing death forward still makes D liable.
IV. Victim’s Own Actions (Escape/Reaction)
R v Roberts
V’s escape only breaks chain if unforeseeable or unreasonable.
E.g. V jumped from car → foreseeable → D liable.
V. Third Party Interventions
R v Pagett
Reasonable, proportionate and foreseeable third party actions (e.g. police shooting) do not break chain.
D using human shield → D liable.
R v White
Factual Causation - Attempted Murder
Context (One-line summary):
D put poison in his mother’s drink, but she died of a heart attack unrelated to the poison.
Legal Question:
Was D’s conduct a factual cause of the victim’s death?
Legal Principle Established:
➔ “But for” test: But for D’s conduct, would V have died? If yes, D is not the factual cause.
Relevance:
➔ Used to establish factual causation in homicide; D must be the factual cause to be liable
R v Smith
Legal Causation
murder - Causation is only broken if the secondary act is so potent, unforeseeable and independent that it makes the original act insignificant in causing the harm.
Context (One-line summary):
D stabbed V; V received poor medical treatment and died.
Legal Question:
Did poor medical treatment break the chain of causation?
Legal Principle Established:
➔ D’s act must be a “significant and operative cause” of death — later negligence does not normally break the chain.
R v Smith Established the original test — D still liable if wound is an operating and substantial cause
R v Cheshire Modern
Relevance:
➔ Confirms that initial wounds causing death remain the operative cause even with negligent treatment.
R v Blaue
Thin Skull Rule
Context (One-line summary):
D stabbed V, who refused a life-saving blood transfusion for religious reasons and died.
Legal Question:
Is D still liable if V’s refusal of treatment contributed to death?
Legal Principle Established:
➔ Thin skull rule: “Take your victim as you find them” — including their religious beliefs.
Relevance:
➔ D cannot escape liability because of V’s vulnerabilities or decisions.
R v Pagett
Offence Manslaughter
Brief Facts The defendant, Pagett, used his pregnant girlfriend as a human shield while firing at police officers who were attempting to arrest him. The police returned fire, unintentionally killing the girlfriend. Pagett was charged with her death.
Legal Importance (Ratio/Precedence) The court held that Pagett’s actions were a substantial and operative cause of the victim’s death. The police’s actions did not break the chain of causation because their response (returning fire) was reasonable, proportionate, and foreseeable. Pagett was found guilty of manslaughter.
Golden Nugget to Remember Does a third party’s action (e.g., police shooting) break the chain of causation? Not if the action is a reasonable and foreseeable response to the defendant’s conduct. Pagett was held liable because his use of the victim as a shield was the key cause of her death.
R v Dyson
Offence Manslaughter Accelerating death counts
Brief Facts The defendant, Dyson, inflicted injuries on his child, who was already terminally ill with meningitis. The child died earlier than expected due to Dyson’s actions. Dyson was charged with manslaughter.
Legal Importance (Ratio/Precedence) This case established that accelration equals causation. The defendant’s actions were a substantial and operating cause of death.
Golden Nugget to Remember “Protects vulnerable vicitimes - The defendant must ““take the victim as they find them,”” including pre-existing conditions
The vicitm wouldnt have died one minute earlier but for ……”
R v Roberts
Context (One-line summary):
D made unwanted advances; V jumped from moving car to escape and was injured.
Legal Question:
Does V’s reaction break the chain of causation?
Legal Principle Established:
➔ Victim’s actions only break chain if unforeseeable or unreasonable — here, V’s reaction was foreseeable.
Relevance:
➔ Shows that reasonable victim responses do not break causation.
R v Cheshire
medical causation
Clarified that even serious medical negligence will not break the chain unless it’s so potent and independent as to render D’s act insignificant
QUOTE: “Only in the “most extraordinary and unusual” cases will medical treatment break the chain.”
R v Jordan contrast R v Smith foundational
R v Jordan
Jordan is a rare case where medical treatment did break the chain of causation.
V was recovering well from stab wounds but was given a drug he was known to be allergic to, and at an excessive dose.
Death was caused by medical treatment, not the stab wound.
Court held D not liable — treatment was “palpably wrong” and the original injury was no longer life-threatening.
Used to contrast with Cheshire and Smith
