• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Rules of Causation Case. Jess throws paint in Sams eyes. Sam had to go to hospital to have paint removed from his eyes. On the way home, just before his sight was fully recovered, he tripped on the kerb and fractured his skull.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Jess throws paint in Sam's eyes. Sam had to go to hospital to have paint removed from his eyes. On the way home, just before his sight was fully recovered, he tripped on the kerb and fractured his skull. - Outline the rules of causation and briefly discuss whether Jess caused Sam's fractured skull (7 marks) Once it has been established that the defendant performed the act, the prosecution must prove that it was the defendant's conduct which caused those consequences to occur. The prosecution has to show that the defendant's conduct was the factual cause of that consequence, the defendant's conduct was in law the cause of that consequence and there was no intervening act which broke the chain of causation. ...read more.

Middle

Held defendant was substantial and operating cause of death as the victim died from blood loss as a result of the stab wound. This relates to the scenario because Jess is the operating and substantial cause of Sam's injuries, he sustained his injuries because of Jess' actions. Novus actus interveniens (new intervening act), this is where the chain of causation is broken and the defendant is no longer guilty. There are only three ways in which the chain of causation can be broken, this is by the act of a third party, the victim's own act and a natural but unpredictable event. An example of the act of a third party is, R v Jordan, the defendant stabbed the victim who was taken to hospital. ...read more.

Conclusion

The thin skull rule is that you must take your victim as you find them. An example of this is, R v Blaue, the defendant stabbed a Jehovah's Witness who was told in hospital she would die if she didn't have a blood transfusion, on religious grounds she refused and died. Held the stab wound was still the substantial and operating cause due to the thin skull rule. This relates to the scenario because Sam tripped on the kerb due to the substantial and operating cause of having paint in his eyes. Jess did cause Sam's fractured skull. But for her actions of throwing paint in his eyes, he would not have tripped on the kerb. The substantial and operating cause for Sam tripping on the kerb was his partial sight caused by Jess throwing paint in his eyes. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Criminal Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Here's what a teacher thought of this essay

5 star(s)

This is a good answer. It briefly but accurately outlines each of the rules of causation and supports each rule with relevant case authority. Each rule is accurately applied to the facts of the scenario.
It may be unnecessary to include the last two points of novus actus as they are not relevant to the scenario. Try to select relevant material, especially in a time limited situation.
Rating *****

Marked by teacher Nick Price 22/03/2012

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Criminal Law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    English law does not normally impose liability for an omission or failure to act ...

    4 star(s)

    they fail to do so they can be criminally liable for the consequences. The category of duty owed because of a special relationship is the most clear of the duties as it satisfies conviction on both legal and moral grounds and similar to duty under a statutory offence it protects the most vulnerable who trust to be looked after.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Is the current law on the non-fatal offences against the person satisfactory?

    4 star(s)

    cover minor cuts; this means that the harm caused is not necessarily equivalent to GBH. In Ireland; Burstow, the House of Lords confirmed that psychiatric harm could amount to ABH (as decided in Constanza), but added that it could also constitute GBH in extreme cases.

  1. Marked by a teacher

    OCR Feb 10 Exam Paper Non-Fatal Offences Problem Case. The scenario states that Colin ...

    4 star(s)

    Colin grabbed Sarah's coat, and thus under the ruling of the Thomas case, he had applied unlawful force. The Mens Rea for battery is 'intention or recklessness to apply unlawful force'. Colin had grabbed Sarah intentionally, as he is said to go onto punch Sarah.

  2. The justifiable use of force in self-defence depends entirely upon the circumstances in which ...

    Then in Scarlett (1993) Beldam LJ inadvertently created the impression that the reasonable test was purely subjective. The defendant had used excessive force to evict a drunk from his pub, who fell down five steps, fatally striking his head and died.

  1. Human Trafficking In Australia. This essay will be covering different aspect of human ...

    In 1999 Australia introduced the first of sexual slavery laws with the Criminal Code (Slavery and sexual servitude) amendment act 1999 (cth). This further refined and added more human trafficking offences to the Federal Criminal Code in the Criminal amendment (Trafficking in persons offences)

  2. The rules and principles of causation not only provide fair practical solutions to the ...

    factual cause there is no reason to use further tests as it is only likely to increase the probability of allowing the defendant to be found not guilty, and therefore leaving a crime unpunished.

  1. Explain the meaning of the term "causation"

    However if a victims actions are unforeseeable such as in R v Williams and Davis, where a man was having his wallet robbed and jumped out of the car and was killed, then the defendants arenât liable, as there is a break in the chain of causation.

  2. How Satisfactory Is The Current Law On The Deception Offences?

    This deception must be the cause of the obtaining. The defendant must obtain a service as defined in s1 (2), i.e. the victim must confer a benefit on the defendant. The 'services' must be unjustified. It must be conferred by the doing, causing, or permitting of some act; a failure to act which confers a benefit is not sufficient.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work