Causation
Causation is required where a consequence needs to be proved.
Causation ensures that we can link the prohibited conduct (the act or omission) to the result (the
consequence).
Factual Causation
The ‘but for’ test can help us decide whether the consequence would not have happened ‘but for’
the defendant’s conduct.
R v Pagett (1938) - The defendant, Pagett, held his pregnant girlfriend hostage. The police tried to
get him to surrender, however Pagett starting firing at the police and held his girlfriend in front of
him, using her as a ‘human shield’. The police fired back at Pagett however some of the bullets hit
the girlfriend and she died. Using the ‘but for’ test, it was determined that Pagett was guilty of
manslaughter because the girlfriend would not have died ‘but for’ him using her as a shield during
the shoot-out.
R v White - The defendant put cyanide into the victim’s (his mother) drink, with the intention to kill
her. The victim took a few sips of the drink but fell asleep before finishing the rest of the drink. The
victim never woke up. The autopsy revealed that the victim had died from a heart attack. There were
no traces of the cyanide in the victim’s system, nor was there enough cyanide in the drink in the first
place to cause death.
Legal Causation
Once proving that there has been factual causation, we then need to show that there is legal
causation that links the defendant to the consequence.
This is particularly important where there may be more than one act (done by contributors other
than the defendant) contributing to the consequence. We can use legal causation to see who is
responsible for the result.
R v Kimsey (1996) - The defendant was involved in a high-speed car chase with her friend. The
defendant lost control of the car and the other driver was killed in the crash. The evidence
surrounding the loss of control was unclear. The judge stated that to find legal causation, the
defendant’s actions did not need to be “the principal, or a substantial cause of the death”. Rather, a
jury needs to be “sure that it was a cause and that there must be something more than a slight or
trifling link”.
R v Hughes (2013) - “Where there are multiple legally effective causes, it suffices if the act or
omission under consideration is a significant (or substantial) cause, in the sense that it is not de
minimis or minimal. It need not be the only or the principal cause. It must, however, be a cause
which is more than de minimis, more than minimal”.
Causation is required where a consequence needs to be proved.
Causation ensures that we can link the prohibited conduct (the act or omission) to the result (the
consequence).
Factual Causation
The ‘but for’ test can help us decide whether the consequence would not have happened ‘but for’
the defendant’s conduct.
R v Pagett (1938) - The defendant, Pagett, held his pregnant girlfriend hostage. The police tried to
get him to surrender, however Pagett starting firing at the police and held his girlfriend in front of
him, using her as a ‘human shield’. The police fired back at Pagett however some of the bullets hit
the girlfriend and she died. Using the ‘but for’ test, it was determined that Pagett was guilty of
manslaughter because the girlfriend would not have died ‘but for’ him using her as a shield during
the shoot-out.
R v White - The defendant put cyanide into the victim’s (his mother) drink, with the intention to kill
her. The victim took a few sips of the drink but fell asleep before finishing the rest of the drink. The
victim never woke up. The autopsy revealed that the victim had died from a heart attack. There were
no traces of the cyanide in the victim’s system, nor was there enough cyanide in the drink in the first
place to cause death.
Legal Causation
Once proving that there has been factual causation, we then need to show that there is legal
causation that links the defendant to the consequence.
This is particularly important where there may be more than one act (done by contributors other
than the defendant) contributing to the consequence. We can use legal causation to see who is
responsible for the result.
R v Kimsey (1996) - The defendant was involved in a high-speed car chase with her friend. The
defendant lost control of the car and the other driver was killed in the crash. The evidence
surrounding the loss of control was unclear. The judge stated that to find legal causation, the
defendant’s actions did not need to be “the principal, or a substantial cause of the death”. Rather, a
jury needs to be “sure that it was a cause and that there must be something more than a slight or
trifling link”.
R v Hughes (2013) - “Where there are multiple legally effective causes, it suffices if the act or
omission under consideration is a significant (or substantial) cause, in the sense that it is not de
minimis or minimal. It need not be the only or the principal cause. It must, however, be a cause
which is more than de minimis, more than minimal”.
