It is interesting to note how little attention has been paid in English Law to the issue of causation. Judicial attention has focused primarily on the notion of blameworthiness in this area and has rarely tried to develop any coherent principles.

The first 200 words of this essay...

It is interesting to note how little attention has been paid in English Law to the issue of causation. Judicial attention has focused primarily on the notion of blameworthiness in this area and has rarely tried to develop any coherent principles.

This statement appears controversial from the outset. It would appear that there are legal principles concerned with causation. Firstly, factual causation in criminal law is defined by the 'but for' test, which states that the "defendant's act is a but for cause of a result, if but for the defendant's act the result would not have occurred. Secondly, legal causation is the 'operating and substantial cause' of the result - 'substantial' meaning that the cause must contribute to the end result to a significant extent (Chesire [1991]*1) and 'operating' meaning that no intervening act has taken over responsibility for the result. This intervening act is a 'break in the chain of causation' or 'novus actus interveniens' - another legal principle.

By examining a number of cases, it is possible to determine an answer to the statement in question. Examining R v Chesire [1991] 3 All ER 670 is particularly helpful. In this case, the defendant