The rules and principles of causation not only provide fair practical solutions to the problems of criminal liability but also are founded on sound moral principles. Discuss this statement.

person a criminal if they have not caused the consequence, as there is no connection between the defendant and the consequence.                                                                                        Once a defendant has been proved to be the factual cause, the court must then establish whether the defendant’s actions were the legal cause. Often there is more than act contributing to the consequence, and some of which may be acts of people other than the defendant. Legal causation can be proven if it is decided that the defendant’s actions were more than a minimal cause, and need not be a substantial cause of the consequence. In the case of R V Kimsey 1996, the defendant was involved in a car crash as a result of a high speed chase. It was decided the defendants driving did not have to be a substantial cause of the other driver’s death because the court could be sure that it was a cause that was something more than slight. This idea that legal causation must be proved can be in direct conflict with society’s morals if there is a strong belief that justice has not been delivered because of a legal technicality. There may be a strong moral uphold that once a defendant has been proved to be the factual cause there is no reason to use further tests as it is only likely to increase the probability of allowing the defendant to be found not guilty, and therefore leaving a crime unpunished.                                                                                                When establishing legal causation the court may employ the ‘thin skull rule’. This rule states that if the victim has something unusual about their physical or mental state which makes an injury more serious, then the defendant will be liable for the more serious injury. In R V Blaue the defendant stabbed the victim, and as a result the victim needed a blood transfusion, but refused it as it went against their beliefs as a Jehovah’s Witness. The victim died and the defendant was charged with murder. The ‘thin skull rule’ is a good example of where the law is built on moral principles because it encourages to reconsider the consequences of their actions by showing more concern for others in fear that they may be victimising the vulnerable.                                                                                If factual and legal causation is proven a chain of causation is created in order to establish whether something else happened after the defendant’s actions which may have contributed to the consequence. This is referred to as an intervening act and can either be an act of a third party, the victim’s own acts, or a natural but unpredictable event. The intervening act must be sufficiently serious and sufficiently independent in order to break the chain of causation.                                                                                        An act of a third party is usually in the form of medical treatment similar to the cases of R V Smith and R V Cheshire. In both cases the medical staff worsened the injuries of the victim, resulting in death or serious injury, and the defendants were found guilty because they caused the initial injury. Medical treatment is unlikely to break the chain of causation unless it is so independent of the defendant’s acts, and in itself so potent in causing the death that the defendant’s acts are negligible. R V Jordan is one of the rare cases where the chain of causation is broken. In this case the doctor gave the victim a large dose of antibiotics, despite knowing the victim was allergic to them, resulting in killing the victim and the defendant being found not guilty.                                                                                As the majority of cases involving intervening acts in the form of medical treatment still hold the defendant guilty it would be fair to say moral principles have been upheld as it would not appear just in the eyes of the public to say the defendant is completely innocent and can no longer be blamed just because medical staff worsened the injuries. It is right when we consider it was the defendant’s intention to cause harm to the victim, and the medical staff’s intention to help the victim, that the blame can only fall on the defendant.                        When the intervening act is the victim’s own act it is important to consider whether the victim’s acts were foreseeable by the defendant; in R V Roberts the victim jumped from a car to escape the defendants sexual advances, and sustained head injuries by doing so. As this was a foreseeable action of the victim, the defendant would be the causation of the victim’s injuries. However, in R V Williams the victim jumped from the defendant’s car to prevent his wallet from being stolen and died as a result. This was deemed to be an unforeseeable act of the victim in which cannot be blamed on the defendant. This distinction in the law poses a great deal of controversy in society’s morals as a defendant could claim there were ‘unforeseeable consequences’ for any offence in order to gain a not guilty verdict. This raises the question of where does society ‘draw the line’ to keep the law fair and precedential, and how will justice be delivered for the victims who have died or sustained serious injuries because of the defendants conduct. In order for moral principles to be upheld in these cases, a jury would need to decide whether the victim’s actions were foreseeable based on the case’s own merits alone which goes against the doctrine of precedent of which our legal system is built upon.