LAW P1 CRIM (CAUSATION) Flashcards

(11 cards)

1
Q

What is causation?

A

Causation is a set of rules which help determine whether a defendant is responsible for the prohibited consequence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What are the two types of causation?

A

Factual and legal causation.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is factual causation?

A

Factual causation consists of the but for test, which asks whether the prohibited consequence would have occured ‘but for’ the defendants conduct (an act or omission)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What are the cases for factual causation?

A

R v White, the defendant is not guilty of murder as he was not the factual cause of the victims death

R v Pagget, but for the defendant using his girlfriend as a shield and firing at police, she would not have died

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What is legal causation?

A

Legal causation consists of:
- de minimus principle
- novus actus interveniens
- Thin skull rule

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What is the de minimus principle?

A

The de minimus principle states that it has to be shown that the defendant made more than minimal contribution to the consequence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What is novus actus interveniens?

A

Novus actus interveniens can be defined as an intervening act which has the potential to break the chain of causation and negate liablity.

Types of intervening acts:
- Acts of the victim
- acts of a third person
- unforeseeable natural events

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What is the thin skull rule?

A

The thin skull rule is the idea that the defendant must take their victim as they find them.

If the victim has any charactersitics that could worsen the injury, the defendant will be liable for the full extent of that consequence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What is the case for the de minimus principle?

A

R v Kimsey, there was more than a ‘slight or trifling link’ between the defendants actions and the result caused.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What are the cases for novus actus interveniens?

A

R v Roberts, there was not something ‘unexpected’ that would sufficiently break the chain of causation.

R v Benge, a defendant can be held criminally liable for the consequence of their actions even if others were also negligent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What is the case for thin skull rule?

A

R v Blaue, the victim died due to the stab wounds the defendant inflicted.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly