Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

actus reus - Coggle Diagram

- - - - there may be more than one act contributing to the consequence and there may be more than just the defendant involved
      - the defendants act need no be the only cause as long as it makes a 'more than minimal' contribution (R v Pagett)
      - 'more than a slight or trifling link' (R v Kimsey)
    - - acts of the victim
        
        (R v Roberts) the victims reaction was not 'daft or unexpected' it was within the range of responses you would expect in the circumstances
        (R v Williams and Davis) the reaction was daft and unexpected
        
        if the victim makes their injuries worse or neglects them the D will remain the cause of the consequence (Dear; Holland)
      - acts of god/ natural but unpredictable event
      - acts of a third party
        
        will only break the chain of causation if the act is 'sufficiently independent of the defendants conduct and is sufficiently serious
        
        negligent medical treatment rarely breaks the chain of causation, it will only do so if the doctors actions are so independent of the defendants contribution and so potent in bringing about the consequence that they render the defendants contribution insignificant (Cheshire)
        
        (R v Smith) the victim received 'thoroughly bad' medical treatment as they didn't appreciate the extent of his injurie. the defendant remained the cause of death as the original injury was still operating and substantial at the time
        
        (R v Cheshire) although the injuries were no longer life threatening. defendant remained the cause of the victims death as the procedure and hence the complication was significantly connected with the original injury
        
        (R v Jordan) palpably wrong
        
        (Malcherek) switching off a life machine by a doctor where it has been decided that the victim is brain dead does not break the chain of causation
    - - the defendant must take the victim as he finds them. even if the victim is more vulnerable to harm due to a pre-existing condition the defendant will be responsible for the full extent of the harm. this includes the 'whole man' so it can include physical and psychological conditions and religious beliefs (R v Blaue)