This set of notes based around causation breaks down some of the key areas around the topic by providing a summary of the key rules, including cases which may prove to be useful. This set of notes should prove useful to anyone doing A Level Law as well as Law Undergraduates.
Causation
In order for a defendant to be found guilty, causation must be established. In other words, this
means that the prosecution must prove the following:
- The defendant’s conduct was the factual cause of the consequence.
- The defendant’s conduct was the legal cause of the consequence.
- There was no intervening act which broke the chain of causation.
Factual Cause
The defendant can only be guilty if the consequence would not have occurred “but for” his actions.
The “but for” test is used to establish factual causation and came from the cause of R v Pagett.
R v Pagett –
- Defendant took his pregnant girlfriend from her home by force.
- When the defendant came out of the house, he held his girlfriend in front of him and fired at
the police.
- When the police returned fire, he used his girlfriend as a human shield, meaning that she
was shot and died as a result of the police bullet.
- The defendant was convicted of manslaughter, as “but for” him using his girlfriend as a
human shield, his girlfriend would not have been killed.
R v White –
- Defendant put cyanide in his mother’s drink with the intention to kill her.
- His mother died of a heart attack before she could drink it.
- Therefore, the defendant was not the factual cause of her death and could not be charged
with murder.
- He was, however, found guilty of attempted murder.
R v Hughes –
- It was held by the Supreme Court that factual causation is not enough on its own for liability.
- They distinguished between cause in the factual “but for” sense and cause in the sense of
something that was a legally effective cause of that consequence.
Legal Causation
The general rule is that a defendant can be found guilty if his actions were more than a “minimal”
cause of the consequence.
However, the defendant’s conduct need not be a substantial cause.
Other acts contributing to the consequence may done by others other than the defendant.
In some cases, courts have stated that the conduct must be more than “de minimis”, however, this
was altered by the case of R v Kimsey.
R v Kimsey –
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller aishaabdelrahim. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $5.79. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
