D’s conduct must cause consequence of the crime
Categorising Crimes:
Conduct crimes – The prohibited behaviour itself forms the actus reus of the offence
e.g abduction
State of affairs crimes – The actus reus is formed solely from the existence of a
state of affairs
Result crimes – The actus reus must result in a certain outcome e.g V must die for
there to be the actus reus of murder
The chain of causation
Factual causation - The consequence would not have happened regardless of D’s
conduct, D is not the cause
Can we say that the ‘but for’ D’s conduct, the outcome would not have occurred
Example: White 1910
D poisoned mothers drink but she died of a heart attack before she could drink
‘but for’ test failed, no factual causation
Legal causation – more than a minimal cause + thin small rule + chain of causation
If D was factual cause but not legal cause, D is not guilty e.g Kimsey 1992
D’s conduct must be more than minimal cause of the outcome
Chain of causation – the direct link from the defendant’s conduct to the consequence
If there is clear and unbroken link between D’s actions and what happened to V
then D will be guilty of causing the consequence
The chain of causation can be broken by an act of third party, victim’s own
act and a natural but unpredictable event
Categorising Crimes:
Conduct crimes – The prohibited behaviour itself forms the actus reus of the offence
e.g abduction
State of affairs crimes – The actus reus is formed solely from the existence of a
state of affairs
Result crimes – The actus reus must result in a certain outcome e.g V must die for
there to be the actus reus of murder
The chain of causation
Factual causation - The consequence would not have happened regardless of D’s
conduct, D is not the cause
Can we say that the ‘but for’ D’s conduct, the outcome would not have occurred
Example: White 1910
D poisoned mothers drink but she died of a heart attack before she could drink
‘but for’ test failed, no factual causation
Legal causation – more than a minimal cause + thin small rule + chain of causation
If D was factual cause but not legal cause, D is not guilty e.g Kimsey 1992
D’s conduct must be more than minimal cause of the outcome
Chain of causation – the direct link from the defendant’s conduct to the consequence
If there is clear and unbroken link between D’s actions and what happened to V
then D will be guilty of causing the consequence
The chain of causation can be broken by an act of third party, victim’s own
act and a natural but unpredictable event
