Causation
An essential element in murder; manslaughter and ABH; GBH
There is factual causation and legal causation; both must be shown for D to be liable
Factual causation:
But for test – but for D’s acts, would the end result have occurred – R v White
Factual causation on its own is not enough for liability – R v Hughes – in this case the
Supreme Court is acknowledging the difference between factual causation and legal
causation
Legal causation:
R v Hughes – ‘it suffices if the act or omission under consideration is a significant (or
substantial) cause, in the sense that it is not minimal. It need not be the only or the principal
cause. It must, however, be a cause which is more than minimal’ meaning that the D’s act
must make a ‘more than minimal’ contribution to the end result (this was confirmed in R v
Taylor)
(maybe mention Pagett here as well)
Thin skull rule – R v Blaue – ‘those who use violence on other people must take their victims
as they find them. This means the whole man, not just the physical man’
The jury must decide whether there is an unbroken ‘chain of causation’ between D’s act and
the end result
A novus actus interveniens (a new intervening act) would break the chain of causation and D
would not be liable
Novus actus interveniens –
The victim’s own acts –
Victim’s own deliberate acts – (talk about Roberts and Kennedy/Wallace)
Kennedy – the victim’s deliberate, voluntary act will usually break the chain of causation
R v Wallace – ‘generally speaking… D may not be held responsible for the deliberate act of
such a person’ this case demonstrates that the victim’s own deliberate act does not
An essential element in murder; manslaughter and ABH; GBH
There is factual causation and legal causation; both must be shown for D to be liable
Factual causation:
But for test – but for D’s acts, would the end result have occurred – R v White
Factual causation on its own is not enough for liability – R v Hughes – in this case the
Supreme Court is acknowledging the difference between factual causation and legal
causation
Legal causation:
R v Hughes – ‘it suffices if the act or omission under consideration is a significant (or
substantial) cause, in the sense that it is not minimal. It need not be the only or the principal
cause. It must, however, be a cause which is more than minimal’ meaning that the D’s act
must make a ‘more than minimal’ contribution to the end result (this was confirmed in R v
Taylor)
(maybe mention Pagett here as well)
Thin skull rule – R v Blaue – ‘those who use violence on other people must take their victims
as they find them. This means the whole man, not just the physical man’
The jury must decide whether there is an unbroken ‘chain of causation’ between D’s act and
the end result
A novus actus interveniens (a new intervening act) would break the chain of causation and D
would not be liable
Novus actus interveniens –
The victim’s own acts –
Victim’s own deliberate acts – (talk about Roberts and Kennedy/Wallace)
Kennedy – the victim’s deliberate, voluntary act will usually break the chain of causation
R v Wallace – ‘generally speaking… D may not be held responsible for the deliberate act of
such a person’ this case demonstrates that the victim’s own deliberate act does not
