Causation

Causation

The link between D's act or omission and the criminal outcome
Must be proved in result or consequence crimes (murder)
FACTUAL CAUSATION
1. Proved through the 'but for' test which states that D will only be guilty if the outcome would not have happened but for his actions
  1. R V WHITE
    1. Where D attempted to poison his mother but she died of a heart attack instead
LEGAL CAUSATION
1. Considers whether or not there is a break in the chain of causation
  1. Sometimes the chain can be broken by an intervening factor
2. The basic rule is that there is no break if D's act was an OPERATING AND SUBSTANTIAL cause of the outcome
  1. R V SMITH
3. Other tests to see if the chain has been broken:
  1. Whether D's act or omission CONTRIBUTED SIGNIFICANTLY to the outcome
    1. R V CHESHIRE
  2. A third party or natural event, as long as it was NOT REASONABLY FORESEEABLE
    1. R V PAGETT
  3. The victim's own act, but only if the act was SO DAFT AND UNEXPECTED NO REASONABLE PERSON COULD FORESEE IT
    1. R V CORBETT
  4. THE THIN SKULL RULE where D must take his victim with all peculiarities as he finds him
    1. R V BLAUE
  5. MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE will break the chain where it is both SO PALPABLY WRONG and an INDEPENDENT CAUSE OF DEATH
    1. R V JORDAN

Resumen del Recurso

	Creado por elissamansley hace más de 11 años