There are two types of causation, factual causation, the defendant can only be guilty if the consequences would not have happened but for this act. An example of this is, R v Pagett, the defendant used his girlfriend as a human shield against police fire. He shot at the police, they fired back, killing his girlfriend. But for his actions she wouldn’t have died. This relates to the scenario because but for Jess throwing paint in Sam’s eyes, he would not have been partly sighted and tripped on the kerb resulting in a fractured skull.
Causation in law, the defendant’s actions must be the operating and substantial cause. An example of this is, R v Smith, two soldiers were fighting, one was stabbed, he was dropped twice on his way to hospital and received bad medical treatment and died. 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. A week later, after the wound had healed, he was given the wrong injection and died. Held medical treatment was palpably wrong, this broke the chain of causation. This relates to the scenario as Sam received good medical treatment, which means the chain of causation was not broken by the act of a third party.
An example of the victims own act is, R v Roberts, the victim jumped from a moving car because the defendant made sexual advances at her. Held the chain could only be broken if the victim did something so unexpected that no reasonable man could be expected to foresee it. This relates to the scenario because Sam’s actions were expected and reasonable for the situation in which he was in.
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.
