Causation Problem of Causation For many crimes we

Causation

Problem of Causation • For many crimes, we have to show that the Act CAUSED a particular consequence • Causation is part of the Actus Reus of the crime • Need to apply the rules of causation to decide whether D’s guilty act caused the required consequence in the definition of the crime

Conduct and Result Crimes • Conduct crimes – where the act is the actus reus and the consequences are immaterial - e. g. possession of illegal drugs • Result crimes – where the actus reus must produce a particular consequence – e. g. murder – the act has to produce a death • In result crimes, the act itself may not be a crime but the consequence is – if I throw a stone it is not necessarily a crime, but if it hits someone, it is. • Must find causation in all result crimes

When we need to prove causation • Often causation is not an issue – if I hit someone over the head with an iron bar and their skull is fractured, there is no question that I caused the fractured skull • When it is less clear, the prosecution must prove factual and legal causation

Factual Causation • D is only guilty if the consequence would not have happened “but for” his act • White – D put poison in his mother’s drink, intending to kill her. She died shortly after of a heart attack before poison had taken effect. Whilst D intended to kill her and she had died, he had not caused her death therefore not guilty of murder • Pagett – D used his girlfriend as a human shield while he shot at armed police. Police fired back and killed girlfriend. D convicted of girlfriend’s manslaughter as she would not have died “but for” his actions

Legal Causation • Once P has proved factual causation, must move on to prove legal causation • Link between act and the consequence is the “chain of causation” and must remain unbroken • Legal causation means that the act must be the “operating and substantial cause” of the consequence • 2 ways the chain of causation can be broken: • Novus Actus Interveniens of third party (new intervening act) • Novus Actus Interveniens of victim • There is also a principle that you must “take your victim as you find him”

Novus Actus Interveniens of Third Party • A third party (i. e. not D or V) does something which potentially contributes to the outcome • Jordan – D stabbed V. V taken to hospital. A week later, wound was almost healed, doctors gave V an incorrect injection and he died. As medical treatment was “palpably wrong” chain of causation was broken – no legal causation – and D acquitted. Original injury was not the operating and substantial cause of death (D would still be guilty of wounding) • Smith – 2 soldiers involved in a fight. V received a stab wound that pierced his lung. V taken to medical station where he died an hour later. D argued the chain of causation had been broken by the way V had been treated – V had been dropped twice while being carried to the medical station, medical officer did not realise the serious extent of the wounds, the treatment he gave him was “thoroughly bad and might well have affected his chances of recovery”. Court held that D’s actions were still the operating and substantial cause of death as V died from loss of blood caused by stab wounds inflicted by D • Cheshire – V shot in thigh and stomach. When wounds were no longer life-threatening, he was given a tracheotomy to help with breathing problems and died due to a rare complication with the tracheotomy. The complications were not seen as independent of the gunshot wounds as they were the main reason for the tracheotomy so chain of causation not broken. Wounds were still a significant cause. • Cases relating to medical treatment are confusing – general principle is that to count as a Novus Actus Interveniens, and therefore break the chain of causation, the sole cause needs to be a completely independent act from D’s

Novus Actus Interveniens by Victim • Sometimes V’s actions can count as a NAI and break the chain of causation. • But if D causes V t act in a foreseeable way, then V’s own act will not break chain of causation – this will depend on whether V’s act was reasonable or unreasonable • Roberts – girl was a passenger in D’s car and injured herself by jumping out of the car while it was moving. Her explanation was that D had made sexual advances to her and was trying to pull her coat off. D convicted for injuries – court held that the test was whether the result was the reasonably foreseeable consequence of what D was saying or doing • But chain of causation will be broken if V does something daft or so unexpected that the reasonable man could not be expected to foresee it • Williams – D gave a lift to a hitch-hiker (V). D allegedly tried to rob V who jumped from the moving car and died from head injuries. Held that V’s act was a NAI and broke the chain of causation as it was voluntary and unreasonable and therefore broke the chain of causation

The “Thin Skull” Rule • General principle is that you have to take your victim as you find him • If victim has an underlying medical condition that will make injuries worse, D is still liable for full extent of injuries. • Blaue – D stabbed V who was a Jehovah’s Witness. V rushed to hospital where doctors told her she would die if she did not have a blood transfusion. V refused on religious grounds and died from wounds shortly after. Court held that D had to take his victim as he found her meaning not just her physical condition but also her religious beliefs.