Obviously a defendant could not be held liable if they weren’t a significant contribution to the death. This was established in the case of White 1910. The defendant was a man that had attempted to poison his mother, he had put poison into her drink, but she suddenly died of a heart attack before she drunk it. The courts decided that the defendant couldn’t be held liable for the death of his mother, and he had not caused her death, and that she would have died irrespective as to whether he poisoned her drink. The test used to establish that the defendant’s actions are the factual cause of death is the ‘but for’ test, the courts must be convinced that the death would not have occurred but for the actions of the accused. White 1910 did not satisfy the ‘but for’ test, as White’s actions made no difference to the outcome. However this test is not always as easy to determine, in the case of Dalloway 1847, a driver of a cart was not using his reigns as he travelled along a road, a three year old child then ran into the road and was killed. It was an appropriate argument that had the driver not have been travelling along the road, the child would not have happened, but the courts required that the prosecution must prove that but for the negligence of the driver not using his reigns, the child would not have died. In this case, the charge could not sustained as the prosecution was unable to prove that the negligence of the driver was the factual cause of the death.
Factual causation is not the only element that the prosecution must prove. Although it is the first test they will look at, the is a fundamental part of the charge, as if the defendant can not be held as the factual cause of the death, then it does not matter whether they are the legal cause or not. The court’s will also carry out a test, to establish whether the accused’s conduct was also the legal cause of the death, the prosecution will attempt to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant’s act was a substantial cause of the death, and that there is not an intervening act which had broken the chain of causation.
Obviously a defendant could not be held liable if they weren’t a significant contribution to the death. This was established in the case of White 1910. The defendant was a man that had attempted to poison his mother, he had put poison into her drink, but she suddenly died of a heart attack before she drunk it. The courts decided that the defendant couldn’t be held liable for the death of his mother, and he had not caused her death, and that she would have died irrespective as to whether he poisoned her drink. The test used to establish that the defendant’s actions are the factual cause of death is the ‘but for’ test, the courts must be convinced that the death would not have occurred but for the actions of the accused. White 1910 did not satisfy the ‘but for’ test, as White’s actions made no difference to the outcome. However this test is not always as easy to determine, in the case of Dalloway 1847, a driver of a cart was not using his reigns as he travelled along a road, a three year old child then ran into the road and was killed. It was an appropriate argument that had the driver not have been travelling along the road, the child would not have happened, but the courts required that the prosecution must prove that but for the negligence of the driver not using his reigns, the child would not have died. In this case, the charge could not sustained as the prosecution was unable to prove that the negligence of the driver was the factual cause of the death.
Factual causation is not the only element that the prosecution must prove. Although it is the first test they will look at, the is a fundamental part of the charge, as if the defendant can not be held as the factual cause of the death, then it does not matter whether they are the legal cause or not. The court’s will also carry out a test, to establish whether the accused’s conduct was also the legal cause of the death, the prosecution will attempt to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant’s act was a substantial cause of the death, and that there is not an intervening act which had broken the chain of causation.
The issue of causation is often raised in cases of homicide. No rules have been established that legislation over the issue of causation, instead case law have determined a variety of precendents to solve the problems caused by causation in various circumstances. It isn’t difficult to decide whether a defendant’s conduct caused the death in question, but it may be argued that a third party contributed to the death.
The courts have decided that the principle of causation should be split into two tests, and the defendant must be proven responsible for the factual cause of the death, and the legal cause of the death. So the prosecution has to prove to the required burden of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, that the conduct of the accused caused the resulting harm, and also that the accused in liable in law.
The issue of causation is often raised in cases of homicide. No rules have been established that legislation over the issue of causation, instead case law have determined a variety of precendents to solve the problems caused by causation in various circumstances. It isn’t difficult to decide whether a defendant’s conduct caused the death in question, but it may be argued that a third party contributed to the death.
The courts have decided that the principle of causation should be split into two tests, and the defendant must be proven responsible for the factual cause of the death, and the legal cause of the death. So the prosecution has to prove to the required burden of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, that the conduct of the accused caused the resulting harm, and also that the accused in liable in law.
