Causation can be broken up into two different parts factual causation and legal causation. Firstly factual causation uses the ‘But for’ test were by the question arises but for the defendants actions would the damage still of occurred? This can be shown in case R v White as the defendant was let of murder, as his actions did not cause the death a heart attack was the cause. However he was still guilty of attempt as he had the Mens rea as the actions in which Mr. White took were more than merely perpouertry. However, in case R v Pagnent a man who held his girlfriend hostage was guilty of her murder when however the police shot her down after taking fire from the defendant. The court held that it was Mr. Pagnent’s actions that led to the death of his girlfriend as he put her into these risks. Secondly, the Thin skull rule applies in legal causation were by the defendant must take his victim as he found him. Such as in R v Blaure a Jehovah witness refused a blood transfusion and died. However, the victim could have been saved the defendant was still liable for death. Also, a Novus actus intervenes can occur were by a new act breaks the chain. This consists of two parts. Firstly the victims own actions such as in R v Roberts and also in R v Williams. In Roberts the court held that her escape from a moving car was a predictable consequence due to the seriousness of the threat made by the defendant towards her. However, In Williams the actions taken were deemed to be to extreme for the threat and therefore was treated as a novus actus intervenes. Also, actions by a third party can amount to a novus actus intervenes. However for medical treatment to amount to a novus actus intervenes after a criminal assult has occurred it must be serious. For example in the cases R v Chesire and R v Jordon. Firstly, In R v Chesire it was held not the doctors were not liable when later on the patient died from a traciostimy after being shot in the leg. However, Secondly In R v jordon the courts held the doctors were liable as a different doctor had given the patient antibiotics which the hospital found out earlier that he was allergic to them.
Mens rea is the term used to describe the mind in which the defendant had when committing the crime. A criminal mind must be proven. There are two blameworthy states of mind. The most blameworthy being intention. In the serious crimes such as murder this must be proven beyond reasonable dought that there was intention. The first of this is direct intent, this is by the defendants aim or purpose is to intentionally bring any unlawful consequences.This was first established in the case of Mohan were the court said ‘intedintion is a decision to about, in so far as it lies within the accused’s power , no matter whether the acues desired that consequence of his act or not’ If the defendant intended to cause some harm but not the harm that but not the harm that occurred then this can be called oblique. This approach is based upon forsight of the consequences as a virtue of certainty. This can be explained in R v Woollin were by the defendant was found guilty as the consequence must be of virtue certainty and the defendant must realise this.
Recklessness is the second level of mens rea. This is were an unjustifiable risk has been taken. The law on recklessness was simplified in R v R.N.G as now a subjective test must be taken, as it must be proved that the defendant realized the risk but took it anyway. This can be shown in the case R v Cunningham were by a subjective test was used. The defendant was charged with merliciously administering a noxious thing to endanger life. However, the defendant was assed by a subjective test and found not to of seen the risk and therefore was not guilty as he did not have the mens rea of subjective recklessness. A tranfered malice can take palace were by a defendant can be found guilty if he intended to commit a similar crime but against a different victim. For example in R v Latimer the defendant went to hit another missed and hit a women. The doctrine of transferred malice applied and he was found guilty. However this does not apply if the offence the defendant caused was not the same as he had the mes rea for. This can be shown in R v Pemblition were a stone was thrown at people missed and hit a window. The doctrine of transferred malice will not apply as it cannot be transferred from hitting the people to the breaking of the window, as the crime is different.
Negligence is the third level of mens rea this is were an inadvertent taking of risk has applied. For example driving offences under the Road Traffic act 1991. There is also gross negligence such as in R v Adormatro were the doctor failed to notice the distress the patient had due to the oxygen tube becoming detached as not proper attention was took by the doctor. The patient suffered server brain damage and died 6 months after. The doctor was found guilty of manslaughter as the mens rea was found to be gross negligence.
- In this case contemporenauis must be thought about as the actus reas and mens rea were not at the same time. However when the actus reas occurred the mens rea then started. As alan was reversing he did not know that Denis was trapped against the wall therefore not meaning to trap him or cause any damage to denis. However, after seeing that Denis was trapped which the trapping of Denis is the actus reus of the case he continued with this knowing that harm will done if Alan persists with not moving his lorry. This can be said as an obvious consiquence of his failure to move the lorry. This is were the mens rea of the case meets the actus reus for the first time as Alan now has the intention to keep his lorry there causing more and more serious harm to Denis the longer it is there for even though Alan never set out to cause this damage failure to undo the actions he caused unknowingly amounts to sufficient mens rea for the crime. This specific scenario can be contrasted with Fagon v Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police as Fagon park on the policemans foot there has been no mens rea therefore no crime committed but however after Fagon refuses to move the car from the Policemans foot then the mens rea has occurred and meet the actus reus. Although Fagon can be contrasted with this case the seriousness of the injuries in which Denis has received due to the consequences of Alan not removing the car when realizing what had happened should be taken into account. Due to the seriousness of the injuries inflicted and the dismissal of not wanted to move the car when the victim was in substantial pain either a section 20 or section 47 should apply here. A section 20 could apply as the seriousness of the injuries were by Denis suffered a fractured spine and was permanently paralysed and also the failure to move the lorry when Denis was noticed to be trapped means the crime should be taken far more seriously.