Causation

Involves the proof of causal link between the victim’s injury and the defendant’s act. To
evaluate the actus Reus of crime and to establish the nature of conduct causation has an
integral part. Causation has a wider definition and it is a sort of factual question that varies as
per circumstances. Causation may stand contrary to the term involuntary act, since in
causation we are establishing the substantial act of defendant in order to hold criminal
liability. Causation issue becomes prominent and acute when there are subsequent
intervening acts and multiple causes for the injury.

Two questions are being raised to determine the causation issue. (1) was defendant conduct
the factual and substantial cause of the victim’s injury? (Factual causation), “but for” test.
(A shoots B and B died. B would not have died but for A’s action.) Hart & Honore
described factual cause as an event or act which makes the difference between something
happening and something not happening. The act is a factual cause if the consequence would
not have happened but for that act. An omission is the factual cause if the consequence would
not have happened but for defendant’s failure to act. (R V Morby). Authority for principal
cause is (R vs Smith). If at the time of the death the original wound is still an operative and
substantial cause than death can properly be said as a result of that wound. Held: if the
second cause is so overwhelming as to make the original wound nearly the part of history
then it can be said that death does not flow from that wound. Another authority is R V
Larsonneur. It is important to note that the court at times narrowly defined the term
involuntary and you have to prove the element of involuntariness on concrete grounds.
Causation as a part of actus Reus means whether the defendants conduct caused victims
injure and causation in real sense is a factual question that varies from case to case.

The issue of causation becomes more acute and contentious when there is some subsequent
intervening act. In situation where causation is unclear two questions are raised, was the
defendant’s conduct the factual cause of victim injure or death? If yes then, was the
defendant’s conduct the legal cause of victim injure or death?

Without causation there would be nothing to connect the defendant to the harm according to
some commentators (Ashworth) there are no moral bases for differentiating between killing
and attempting to kill he argued that defendant should be punished for what he tried to do.
Factual causation is determined by reference to “SINE QUA NON-BUT FOR TEST “it
means that injure would not have occurred but for defendants act. It implies that would the
consequences or result specified in the Actus reus have occurred but for defendant conduct. If
it would not have occurred except for defendants act prima facie, defendant would be liable.
If it would have occurred anyway, fault or no fault, the defendant would not be held liable. R
V White Fact: the defendant intended to poison his mother, having a glass of poisons ready
for her but she died of heart failure. Principle: he was liable only for attempted murder as he
had not actually caused her death but for the defendant’s act of getting the poison ready,
mother would still have died. White was not held accountable for death because the factual
cause was heart attack and not poisoning. Carey Fact: A girl was punched in her face during
a public fight after the danger from the defendant she ran uphill about 109 yards, neither she
nor her daughter was aware that she suffered from a heart disease and she died due to cardiac
arrest. The court held that extending the liability for her death to the defendant would be an
“unwarranted extension of but for test.” Morby Conviction for Morby for manslaughter was
overturned when he had failed for religious reasons to summon doctor for his child for small
pox because it could not be shown that child’s life could be saved despite efforts. He was not
the factual cause as but for his actions his child may have died. “Draft medical bill
proposed-Might for test” a person causes a result crime which he might have saved or
prevented if he acted.

A distention must be drawn between factual cause and a mere condition

Dyson Father beaten up child. At hospital it was discovered that he would have died long
before. Father maintained that he was not the “but for” cause. Court held that it was
necessary to show that the defendant was the sole cause of death as long as he accelerated the
time of death. Mitchell The accused punched a man who had accused him of queue jumping
in the post office. The men fell on the top of 89 year old lady which initially broke her leg
and consequently caused her death due to pulmonary disease. Principle: the accused
conviction for manslaughter was upheld on appeal even though transferred malice and the
principles of causation not withstanding little but the accident separated the accused from the
other people who have had a little rough in a slow moving queue.

Legal causation

Was the defendant conduct of legal cause of the injury/legal causation? IN legal causation
defendant’s act were the substantial cause and operative at the time of death and should not
be “(DE Minimis- more than trivial) it should not be a minute act, the act should be
substantial). As per clause 17 of criminal code bill 1989 a person causes result when he,
Does an act which makes a more than negligible contribution to its occurrence or, Omits to
do an act which might have prevented its occurrence and which he/she is under a duty to do
according to the law relating to the offence. Defendant must be both the factual and legal
cause of the harm in question.

A person does not cause a result when, He did not foresee, Could not in the reasonable
circumstances have foreseen, Any act which is insufficient and immediate cause of result

Legal causation requires that harm must result from the culpable act which can be in law
linked to the prohibited result. A blamable cause is the legal cause and causal link will not
occur if consequences are too remote (indirect) for the accused action. Generally, a factual
cause will become a legal cause unless third party or victim himself interferes with the
chain of causation. In legal causation the medical evidence is relevant but it is not
determinative it may contribute as an evidence but not as a sole evidence.

The general frame work for inputting (which is inferred) cause, Where a person suffers injure
at the hand of the other, the latter will only be the legal cause of injure, to be legal cause the
defendant contribution to the result must be substantial. However, there is no requirement of
sole cause and If subsequent to an action an independent voluntary act or abnormal event
occurred which is sufficient to cause the harm then the original but for test can be ignored.

DEMINIMIS RULE

The De minimis principle entails that the defendant contribution towards the crime must be
more than negligible or trivial. CATO Principle: the defendant act must be outside the De
minims range and should have an effective impact on victims injure. Additionally, in R V
Smith the defendant conduct must be operate and substantial cause. The result or injure must
be attributable to the culpable act. R V Campbell & others (related to Attribution) The
victim had been attacked by number of men including camp bell and Handrey later on
Yateman who had been a member of original group of attackers committed another assault
on the victim and victim died instantly. C & H applied against their conviction arguing that
the death was caused by Y’s attack. Held: it was held that all three defendants were guilty
since death was a result of join enterprise moreover; medical evidence showed that the earlier
injury was a significant cause of death.

Egg Shell Skull Rule/thin skull rule-(medical condition)

Victim must be taken as he is being found and defendant must take the victim as he finds him
and it is referred as egg shell rule. The sensitivity of the victim will not break the chain of
causation and defendant will remain liable for his own wrongful act provided that act is
voluntary. R V Blaue Facts: the defendant stabbed a woman who needed blood transfusion to
survive being a Jehovah’s Witness she declined the blood transfusion and died. The
defendant argued that the refusal of blood transfusion was unreasonable. Held: it was held
that it does not lie in the mouth of the defendant to say that the victim’s religious believe
which inhibited her from accepting certain kind of treatment was unreasonable. The policy of
law is that take your victim as you find him. Thereby defendant was held liable as at the time
of death the operative cause was stabbed wound and not the victim’s refusal. R v Holland
The victim refused treatment for the infected wound that had been inflicted by defendant and
died. It was likely that the victim would have survived had she received the treatment. The
court employed but for test and established that the defendants act was still the legal and
factual cause of death. R V Dalloway Driver of horse cart drove it without his hands on reign
a kid ran in front of the cart and was killed. Principle: the defendant had factually caused the
death but legally he had not because even if he had enough force on reign the cart would not
be able to stop and kid would still have died. R V Dr. Bodkins Adams Doctor was charged
for murder because he gave terminally ill patient a dose of pain killer so strong that it killed
the patient. Devlin J ruled that if the dose were given for pain relief in accordance with Dr’s
duty it would not be the doctor but the disease which was the real cause of death.

Nous Actus Interventions- intervening act that break the chain of causation (It is an
exception to causation)

for an act to qualify as Novus Actus intervention it should be independent unforeseeable act.
Novas Actus interventions includes such as the acts of third parties. Act of victim itself and
act of God. It only applies when there is multiplicity of defendants. To find out the operative
real and substantial cause. There must be a proportionality and Due process and fair trial.

Novus Actus Interveniens (NAI): once the defendant conduct has started a chain of events
he will be legally responsible for the result unless the chain is broken by some supervening
act. NAI entails those acts which break the chain of causation between the defendant act and
the result cause. An intervening act may take different forms such as third party act, act of
victim himself or an act of God. R Vs Pagett The defendant used his girlfriend as a human
shield and she was shot by police officer consequently she died. NAI is so independent of the
act of the accused that it should be regarded in law as the cause of victim death. However a
reasonable act performed for the purposes of self-protection, being off course caused by
accused own act, does not operate as NAI. Causal sequence may be broken by Subsistent
conditions i.e. Medical conditions and Other subsisting conditions. Intervening acts or events
Core laws of NAI: Victim contribution R vs Dear The defendant stabbed the victim but the
victim reopened the wounds after receiving the treatment in order to commit suicide and
dead. Principle: it was held that even if a victim aggravates his wound sufficiently to cause
the otherwise avoidable death, the chain of causation is not broken. Regardless of that court
ruled that as per the cases of Cheshire & Smith the original act of stabbing was still an
operative and substantial cause of death so this was sufficient to kill the victim.

Neglect by the victim R V Holland Where the victim neglects to treat the injury caused by
the defendant and it resulted in the death of the victim it is likely that defendant will be liable.

Medical intervention R V Cheshire The court decided that negligent medical treatment
could not only break chain of causation where it was so independent of the defendant’s act
and in itself potential enough in causing the death than court regard the defendants act as
insignificant as defendant may not be held liable. R V Malcherek The defendant stabbed the
victim how was taken to the hospital after normal treatment she had to be put on life support
machine. The machine was disconnected because the recovery became a matter of
hopelessness. If the victim has died despite the medical treatment is given by a carful and
skilled practitioner than it will not exclude the original from the responsibility for the death.
R V Jordan Medical negligence broke the chain of causation because the victim who had
been stabbed by the defendant received wrongful medical treatment when his wounds had
almost healed. American case of Kane Principle: only when death is solely attributable to
the medical staff and not at all induced by the primary cause than chain of causation would be
broken. Incompetence on the part of medical staff does not break the chain of causation if
defendants action still persist it. Judge Beldon LJ maintained the Cheshire guideline state
how the defendant will lose responsibility in following circumstances. “Deceased was no
longer at risk from defendants wound and Treatment had ulterior reasons including mischief
or mistake. People V Elder Third part B killed victim. Defendant act was the factual cause
and B’s act was the legal cause which may break the chain of causation. Finlay Held:
supplier caused death because it was foreseeable that the recipient would self-inject.
Kennedy It is not correct whether person foresee the results. A free voluntary and informed
choice to self-inject the drugs breaks the chain of causation.

Escape cases

If the defendant attack frightened the victim to the extent that the victim has injured or killed
himself in an attempt to escape provided, that the victims act is not of that nature so as to
make it victims own voluntary act, than defendant will be liable. R V Roberts The defendant
was in a car with victim. A 21 year old women. The defendant made advances towards the
victim who then jumped out of car sustaining injuries. It was held that victim’s response was
not unreasonable and it was reasonably foreseeable as the car was moving at a moderate
speed so defendant was held liable. R V Williams & Davis The nature of the threat was
important in considering the foreseeability of harm to the victim and whether the victims
conduct is proportionate to the threat by the defendant.

R V Dawson- Killing by fright

The defendant attempted the robbery at a petrol station the casher was a 60 years old man
who unknown to defendant suffered from heart disease. Dowson pointed replica gun at that
man, after the danger was over the victim collapsed and died from heart attack. Held: it was
held that the requisite dangerous act has to be such as to cause him physical injury so
defendant was not held liable. R V Watson The defendants act of burglary in the house of 87
year old man and verbally abusing him when he woke up in the middle of the night had
caused death by heart attack. The defendant was liable since it was reasonably foreseeable
that an old man could he caused physical injury in such a situation.

Act of God

A natural event will not break the chain of causation unless it is a freak of natural or
exceptionally dangerous event.

Unlawful administration of drugs R Vs Kennedy (No 1) Principle: normally when drugs

are supplied by the defendant to the victim the chain of causation is broken by victim’s self-
administration of drugs. For a guilty to be established the drugs not only need to be supplied
but also administered to the victim. Ryan V the Queen The defendant entered in to the
service station and pointed gun to the victim and demanded for the money (armed robbery)
the attendant moved suddenly and the trigger was pulled and he died. The defense of
automism was raised. Held: the conduct of defendant causing death was a result of series of
complex acts by the defendant and it was not possible to isolate pulling of trigger as an
involuntary act so defendant was held liable. Foreseeability: if victim’s response to the
accused action is reasonably foreseeable then chain of causation is not broken. R V Mackie

A child of 3 years slipped from stairs to his death attempting to escape his violent father a
similar test was used with the variation that the attempt to escape must be the natural
consequence of unlawful act.