Causation

?
  • Created by: Aimee
  • Created on: 08-01-17 14:47
In result crimes, the defendant's actions or omission must have...
Caused the prohibited result
1 of 11
Two types of causation?
1 Factual test- "But for" 2 Legal test- "operating and substantial cause"
2 of 11
Factual causation case:
R v Mitchell. Defendant in a queue. Pushed someone into an elderly man in front who fell and died. But for the defendant's actions, he wouldn't have died.
3 of 11
Problem with factual causation alone? Case.
It is too remote on its own. R v White. Defendant attempted to poison her mother. Mother died naturally of a heart attack. But for the defendant's actions, she still would have died which would make the daughter liable.
4 of 11
Legal causation case:
R v SmithThe defendant's stabbing was the operating and substantial cause of the victim's death. Died from loss of blood caused by the stab wounds.
5 of 11
Case- "Operating and substantial means more than negligible".
R v Williams
6 of 11
Case- The defendant must take the victim as they find him. What does this mean?
R v Blaue. Any medical conditions or religious beliefs of the victim that affect them after violence has been inflicted are not to blame.
7 of 11
The chain of causation can be broken by medical negligence. Case quote.
R v Cheshire. Medical negligence so potent in causing death it render's the defendant contribution inisgnificant
8 of 11
Will the victim's neglect of injury break the chain of causation? Case.
No, the defendant will still be liable for the injury caused. R v Holland. Cut to finger. Medical advice was to amputate it. Refused and so died.
9 of 11
Case and explain- An act leading to a foreseeable result renders the defendant liable.
R v Roberts. Victim was a passenger in car driven by Roberts. Was being attacked, threw herself from the moving car to escape. Roberts liable for her injuries as they were foreseeable.
10 of 11
Case- The independent choice of the victim to administer the drugs to themselves will break the chain of causation and the drug dealer will not be liable.
R v Kennedy
11 of 11

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

1 Factual test- "But for" 2 Legal test- "operating and substantial cause"

Back

Two types of causation?

Card 3

Front

R v Mitchell. Defendant in a queue. Pushed someone into an elderly man in front who fell and died. But for the defendant's actions, he wouldn't have died.

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

It is too remote on its own. R v White. Defendant attempted to poison her mother. Mother died naturally of a heart attack. But for the defendant's actions, she still would have died which would make the daughter liable.

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

R v SmithThe defendant's stabbing was the operating and substantial cause of the victim's death. Died from loss of blood caused by the stab wounds.

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal resources »