Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Breaking the Chain of Causation? - Coggle Diagram
Breaking the Chain of Causation?
Fatal Causation
The defendant is guilty if the consequence (the end result of an incident) would not have happened.
See
R v White 1910
The defendant put cyanide in his mothers drink. She died of a heart attack before she could drink it. The defendant wasn't factually guilty of murder, although he was guilty of attempted murder.
The defendant is not guilty if the consequence would of happened with or without their intervention.
See
R v Pagett 1983
The defendant used his girlfriend as a shield during a shootout with armed police. She was shot and killed. The defendant was convicted of her manslaughter. She wouldn't have died 'but for' him using her as a shield in the shootout.
Legal Causation
Legal causation is defined as whether 'The defendant's act was an operating and substainial cause of the result'.
Key principles
Taking the victim as found
The defendant is still liable if the victim has a physical or mental condition that makes the injury or situation worse.
Natural consequences
The defendant is liable to the natural consequences of their act, such as the victim fighting back, provided that those said actions weren't 'daft'.
Minimal contribution
The defendant's conduct needs to be a sustaintive cause
No Breakage within the 'Chain of Causation'
Legal causation fails if there is an intervening act that takes place between the cause and the result.
This breakage can be by an act of a third party, the victim's own act, or a natural but unpredictable event.
Key cases
Legal Cause
R v Blaue 1975
Factual Cause
R v Pagett 1983
R v White 1910
Chain of Causation - Medical treatment
R v Smith 1959
R v Cheshire 1991
R v Jordan
Chain of causation - Victims own act
R v Roberts 1971
R v Williams 1992