Scribd
Upload
71 views24 pages

Law Causation Notes

Causation is an essential element of criminal offenses where the prosecution must show the defendant's act caused the prohibited result. The law examines both factual causation using the "but for" test and legal causation by determining if the result was foreseeable and if the defendant's conduct was the operative cause, without being too remote or broken by an intervening act. Codification of causation principles has occurred in Caribbean jurisdictions while also applying the common law rules.

Uploaded by

Nikki Lorraine
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
71 views24 pages

Law Causation Notes

Causation is an essential element of criminal offenses where the prosecution must show the defendant's act caused the prohibited result. The law examines both factual causation using the "but for" test and legal causation by determining if the result was foreseeable and if the defendant's conduct was the operative cause, without being too remote or broken by an intervening act. Codification of causation principles has occurred in Caribbean jurisdictions while also applying the common law rules.

Uploaded by

Nikki Lorraine
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 24

LAW 1110

Criminal Law
Causation
Causation

For want of a nail the shoe was lost


For want of a shoe the horse was lost
For want of a horse the rider was lost
For want of a rider the battle was lost
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail
Causation

Causation is an essential element in any result


crime, where by the prosecution must show that
the act or conduct or omission of the defendant
caused the offence to occur.

The law refers to a “chain of causation” whereby


the defendant’s act caused the result.
Causation

Codification has occurred throughout most


Caribbean jurisdictions in either statutory or code
provisions. The common law rules, in the most
part, apply and will be interpreted in their light.
Causation

Offences Against the Person Act, 1994-18 under


s.8

“A person shall be deemed to have caused the


death of another person, although his act is not
the immediate or not the sole cause of death, in
any of the following cases—”
Causation

(a) if he inflicts bodily injury on another person in


consequence of which that other person undergoes
surgical or medical treatment which causes his
death. In this case it is immaterial whether the
treatment was proper or mistaken, if it was
employed in good faith and with common
knowledge and skill; but the person inflicting the
injury shall not be deemed to have caused the death
if the treatment which was the immediate cause of
the death was not employed in good faith or was so
employed without common knowledge and skill;
Causation

(b) if he inflicts a bodily injury on another which


would not have caused death if the injured
person had submitted to proper surgical or
medical treatment or had observed proper
precautions as to his mode of living;
Factual causation

“Sine Qua Non” or the But for test is applicable to


show the Defendants guilt when factual
causation is at the attention of the courts.
Smith and Hogan states:

“There are many acts that are sine qua non of an


event but are not, either in law or common
sense, the cause of it”
Factual causation

R v White [1910] 2 KB 124

R v Dalloway (1847) 2 Cox 273

R v Williams [2010] EWCA Crim 627, CA

The State v Fletcher TT 1980 HC 98


Factual causation
Causation by omission:

“There can be no question that the failure of the prisoner to


discharge her legal duty at least accelerated the death of the
deceased, if it did not actually cause it. There is no case directly
in point; but it would be a slur upon and a discredit to the
administration of justice in this country if there were any doubt
as to the legal principle, or as to the present case being within
it. The prisoner was under a moral obligation to the deceased
from which arose a legal duty towards her; that legal duty the
prisoner has wilfully and deliberately left unperformed, with
the consequence that there has been an acceleration of the
death of the deceased owing to the non-performance of that
legal duty.”
Legal causation
Legal causation looks into the result of the culpable act or
omission and asses both the responsibility of the Defendant
and where the blame in law lies.

Glanville Williams:

“When one has settled the question of but for causation, the
further test to be applied to the but-for cause in order to
qualify it for legal recognition is not a test of causation but a
moral reaction. The question is whether the result can fairly be
said to be imputable to the defendant...If the term `cause’ must
be used, it can best be distinguished in this meaning as the
`imputable’ or `responsible’ or `blamable’ cause, to indicate the
value-judgment involved (cited in Allen at p.30.)”
Legal causation

Must be more than De minimis:

“As a matter of law, it was sufficient if the heroin


injection was a cause, provided that it was a
cause outside the de minimis range, and
effectively bearing upon the acceleration of the
moment of the victim's death.”
Legal causation

Must be more than De minimis:

R v Smithers (1978) 1 SCR 506


“...the kick was at least a contributing cause of
death, outside the de minimis range, and that is
all that the Crown is required to establish.”
Legal causation
The prohibited act need not be the sole cause

R v Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279

“In cases of homicide, it is rarely necessary to give


the jury any direction on causation as such...Even
where it is necessary to direct the jury’s minds to the
question of causation, it is usually enough to direct
them simply that in law the accused’s act need not
be the sole cause, or even the main cause, of the
victim’s death, it being enough that his act
contributed significantly to that result.”
Legal causation

R v Hennigan [1971] 3 All ER 133

R v Benge (1865) 4 F & F 504


Legal causation

The prohibited act must be the operative /


proximate / effective cause of the prohibited
result:

R v Smith [1959] 2 QB 35

R v Malcherek & Steel [1981] 2 ALL ER 422


Legal causation

A foreseeable consequence

The prohibited result must be a natural


consequence of the Defendant’s actions; it must
be foreseeable as likely to occur in the normal
course of events.
Legal causation
R v Roberts (1971) 56 Cr App R 95

"The nature of the threat is of importance in


considering both the foreseeability of harm to the
victim from the threat and the question whether the
deceased’s conduct was proportionate to the threat,
that is to say that it was within the ambit of
reasonableness and not so daft as to make it his own
voluntary act which amounted to a novus actus
interveniens and consequently broke the chain of
causation. It should of course be borne in mind that
a victim may in the agony of the moment do the
wrong thing."
Legal causation

R v Corbett [1996] Crim LR 594

whether what the victim did was within the


range of foreseeability and whether his reaction
might be something expected

... the natural consequence


Legal causation

Breaking the chain – A Novus Actus

Such an act is defined by a ‘new interveining act’


which is sufficient to absolve the liability of the
Defendant. The responsibility of the Defendant is
removed if the new act, be it naturally occurring
or some human conduct ‘breaks the chain of
causation’.
Legal causation

R v Jordan (1956) 40 Cr. App. R. 152


"palpably wrong“

R v Smith [1959] 2 QB 35
"operating and substantial cause“

R v Cheshire [1991] 3 All ER 670


“Reckless”?
Legal causation

Egg-shell skull rule

The egg shell doctrine, exists to ensure that


should a Defendant’s actions cause harm that a
reasonable person would not suffer, they are not
absolved from liability. The principle dictates that
any Defendant, regardless of the crime they have
committed must ‘take their victim as they find
them’.
Legal causation

R v Blaue [1975] ALL ER 446

“... the defendant had to take his victim as he


found her, meaning not just her physical
condition, but also her religious beliefs…”

But
R v Dawson (1985) 81 Cr App R 150
Legal causation

Drugs:

R v Cato [1976] 1 WLR 110

R v Kennedy [1999] Crim LR 65

R v Dias [2002] 2 Cr App R 5

R v. Kennedy [no. 2] (2007) 3 WLR 612

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy