Causation is where a consequence must be proved, the prosecution has to show that the defendants conduct was the factual cause of that consequence and it was the legal cause of that consequence

Authors Avatar

Causation:

Causation is where a consequence must be proved, the prosecution has to show that the defendant’s conduct was the factual cause of that consequence and it was the legal cause of that consequence and there was no intervening act which broke the chain of causation. There are two types of causation: factual cause is where D can only be guilty if the consequence would not have happened ‘but for’ the defendant’s conduct. In R v White (1910), D put cyanide into his mother's drink, but she died of heart failure before the poison could kill her. D was acquitted of murder because he was not the factual cause of his mother's death. In Pagett (1983), D shot at the police who were attempting to arrest him. D used his pregnant girlfriend as a shield, the offices retuned fire and the girl was killed. The jury convicted him of manslaughter. Pagett was guilty because the girl would not have died ‘but for’ him using her as a shield in the shoot-out. Legal cause may be more than one act contributing to the consequence. The rule is that the defendant can be guilty if his conduct was more than a ‘minimal’ cause of the consequence. But the defendants conduct need not be a substantial cause. In Kimsey (1996), D in a high-speed car chase with a friend. She lost control of the car and the other driver was killed in the crash. D’s driving did not have to be the substantial cause of the death, as long as you were sure it was a cause and the conviction was upheld. The defendant can be guilty even though his conduct was not the only cause of the death. In this case both drivers were driving at high speed, but the one driver could be found guilty.

Join now!

The 'thin skull' rule says that D must take his victim as he finds him. In Blaue (1975), D stabbed a woman (v) and punctured her lung. At the hospital, V was told she would need a blood transfusion to save her life, but refused this as contrary to her religious beliefs. She died next day and D was convicted of her murder. The fact that the victim was a Jehovah’s Witness made the wound fatal, but D was still guilty because he had to take his victim as he found her. In intervening acts, there must be a direct ...

This is a preview of the whole essay