Causation
Is there but for causation?
White; but for the poisoning of V’s drink, would she have died?
Hughes; court held that ‘but for’ test cannot be applied to all cases
Is there legal causation?
D’s conduct need not be the sole cause
- Pagett; D’s act need not be the sole cause or even the main cause of the victim’s death,
it being enough that his act contributed significantly to that result
D’s conduct must be more than trivial
- William; D’s conduct need not be significant, as long as it was A cause
- Hughes; D’s conduct must be a significant cause of the result, and not trivial (overruled
William)
D’s conduct need not be a direct cause
D’s conduct must be a culpable cause
- Dalloway
Is there a break in the chain of causation?
Chain of causation is the links between D’s action to the consequence
There can be breaks in the chain of causation, absolving D of complete liability
- Third party actions
Finlay; act of the V self-injecting themselves does not break the chain of causation
(overruled by Kennedy no2)
Kennedy (no2) ; act of V self-injecting themselves does break the chain of causation
- Natural events
Hart; natural events won’t break the chain of causation if it is a foreseeable
consequence
- V’s actions
Williams; chain of causation is not broken if V’s response is proportionate to the
threat, and in the range of responses that is expected of a V in that situation
- Medical intervention
Jordon; medical intervention broke the chain of causation (bad medical treatment)
Smith; medical intervention did not break the chain of causation because D’s
conduct was a substantial cause of death
REMEMBER: Master and Blau; take the victim as you find them (V’s condition does not break
the chain of causation)
,Omissions
Introduction
No liability for omissions unless a specific legal duty to act exists
Specific crimes
Battery cannot be carried out by an omission; Fagan
GBH and murder can be carried out by an omission; Gibbins and Proctor
Gross negligence manslaughter can be carried out by an omission; Stone and Dobinson
Legal Duty 1 – Prior dangerous act
Where D has initiated a source of danger to certain interests of others, D has a duty to take
reasonable steps to avert the danger created, whether or not the danger was created
wittingly or even voluntarily by D; Miller no 2
D creating a source of danger by lying; Santana-Bermudez
If D creates a dangerous situation, there is a duty to act; Evans
Legal Duty 2 – Prior undertaking of support
V was dependent on D’s care, and D did not support; Stone and Dobinson
D held an implied assumption of care for V (her aunt who she lived with) who was very ill;
Instan
Doctors can omit care if there was no benefit to the patient; Airedale N.H.S. Trust v Bland
Legal Duty 3 – Duty under contract
If an omission breaches someone’s contractual duty, they are criminally liable; Pittwood
Omissions and Causation
There must be proof that medical treatment will save someone, not ‘might’ have saved;
Morby
There needs to be proof beyond reasonable doubt that medical treatment would have saved
V, needs to be higher than 90% chance of survival; Broughton
It must be shown that the harm would have been avoided had D not breached his duty, not
merely that there would have been a (high) chance it would have been avoided; Broughton
,Murder
Actus reus elements
AR = Unlawfully causing the death of a person in being under the queen’s peace
Discuss causation elements (see causation template)
- There must be a causal link between the act and the death
- Must be substantial cause of death, but need not be the sole/main cause; Dyson
- Must have ‘more than minimally negligibly or trivially contributed to the death.’ HM
Coroner for Inner London ex p Douglas-Williams
If there is an omission, there must be a duty to act (see omission template)
Person in being definition:
- Child must be fully born and outside mother; A-G’s Reference (No.3 of 1994)
- Brain dead = not a person in being; Airedale NHS Trust v Bland
- Persistent vegetative state = still person in being
Under the queen’s peace definition:
- Must occur outside the rules of war
Mens rea elements
MR = Intention to kill or intention to cause grievous bodily harm; Cunningham
Murder is a specific intent crime, so only intention can satisfy mens rea
Direct intention:
- The purpose of D’s conduct was to kill or cause grievous bodily harm
- Focus of intention is not on desire or motive, but on purpose
- No scope for mercy killings; Inglis
Indirect intention:
- D has mens rea for murder if there is foresight that their conduct could lead to death;
Hyam
OVERULLED: Foresight must be little short of overwhelming; Moloney
NOTE: Moloney is misleading, because the degree of probability must be considered
(greater probability of consequence = more likely it was foreseen); Hancock and
Shankland
- D must be aware that their actions was virtually certain to cause GBH/death; Woollin
Discuss intoxication if relevant
Defences
Partial defences:
- If no mens rea = involuntary manslaughter
- If there is mens rea but there is diminished responsibility or loss of control = voluntary
manslaughter
NOTE: AR and MR for voluntary manslaughter is the same as murder
Complete defences:
- Self defence
, Voluntary manslaughter
Go through the Murder template before discussing voluntary manslaughter
Introduction
Voluntary manslaughter is a partial defence to murder
- It requires either a loss of control or diminished responsibility
- Look through both and decide which one to pick
Must have AR and MR of murder
Loss of Control
Coroners and Justice Act 2009, Section 54
- S54 (1) Where D kills V, D is not to be convicted of murder if:
- S54 (1) (a) D’s acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted from D’s
loss of control
Loss of control does not need to be sudden – S54 (2)
- S54 (1) (b) The loss of control had a qualifying trigger
- S54 (1) (c) A person of D's sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-
restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or in a similar
way to D.
- S54 (4) Subsection 1 does not apply if D acted in a considered desire for revenge
Seen in Jewel
Definition of loss of control:
- The ‘loss of the ability to act in accordance with considered judgment or a loss of normal
powers of reasoning’; Jewel
- “For the individual with normal capacity of self -restraint and tolerance, unless the
circumstances are extremely grave, normal irritation, and even serious anger do not
often cross the threshold into loss of control.”; Dawes
When can the loss of control defence not be used:
- Loss of control cannot be used if D has incited the violence; Dawes
- Loss of control cannot be used if D has acted in revenge; Jewel
There is arguably a loss of control here as D did…
- However for the loss of control defence to be applicable, there must be a qualifying
trigger
Is there but for causation?
White; but for the poisoning of V’s drink, would she have died?
Hughes; court held that ‘but for’ test cannot be applied to all cases
Is there legal causation?
D’s conduct need not be the sole cause
- Pagett; D’s act need not be the sole cause or even the main cause of the victim’s death,
it being enough that his act contributed significantly to that result
D’s conduct must be more than trivial
- William; D’s conduct need not be significant, as long as it was A cause
- Hughes; D’s conduct must be a significant cause of the result, and not trivial (overruled
William)
D’s conduct need not be a direct cause
D’s conduct must be a culpable cause
- Dalloway
Is there a break in the chain of causation?
Chain of causation is the links between D’s action to the consequence
There can be breaks in the chain of causation, absolving D of complete liability
- Third party actions
Finlay; act of the V self-injecting themselves does not break the chain of causation
(overruled by Kennedy no2)
Kennedy (no2) ; act of V self-injecting themselves does break the chain of causation
- Natural events
Hart; natural events won’t break the chain of causation if it is a foreseeable
consequence
- V’s actions
Williams; chain of causation is not broken if V’s response is proportionate to the
threat, and in the range of responses that is expected of a V in that situation
- Medical intervention
Jordon; medical intervention broke the chain of causation (bad medical treatment)
Smith; medical intervention did not break the chain of causation because D’s
conduct was a substantial cause of death
REMEMBER: Master and Blau; take the victim as you find them (V’s condition does not break
the chain of causation)
,Omissions
Introduction
No liability for omissions unless a specific legal duty to act exists
Specific crimes
Battery cannot be carried out by an omission; Fagan
GBH and murder can be carried out by an omission; Gibbins and Proctor
Gross negligence manslaughter can be carried out by an omission; Stone and Dobinson
Legal Duty 1 – Prior dangerous act
Where D has initiated a source of danger to certain interests of others, D has a duty to take
reasonable steps to avert the danger created, whether or not the danger was created
wittingly or even voluntarily by D; Miller no 2
D creating a source of danger by lying; Santana-Bermudez
If D creates a dangerous situation, there is a duty to act; Evans
Legal Duty 2 – Prior undertaking of support
V was dependent on D’s care, and D did not support; Stone and Dobinson
D held an implied assumption of care for V (her aunt who she lived with) who was very ill;
Instan
Doctors can omit care if there was no benefit to the patient; Airedale N.H.S. Trust v Bland
Legal Duty 3 – Duty under contract
If an omission breaches someone’s contractual duty, they are criminally liable; Pittwood
Omissions and Causation
There must be proof that medical treatment will save someone, not ‘might’ have saved;
Morby
There needs to be proof beyond reasonable doubt that medical treatment would have saved
V, needs to be higher than 90% chance of survival; Broughton
It must be shown that the harm would have been avoided had D not breached his duty, not
merely that there would have been a (high) chance it would have been avoided; Broughton
,Murder
Actus reus elements
AR = Unlawfully causing the death of a person in being under the queen’s peace
Discuss causation elements (see causation template)
- There must be a causal link between the act and the death
- Must be substantial cause of death, but need not be the sole/main cause; Dyson
- Must have ‘more than minimally negligibly or trivially contributed to the death.’ HM
Coroner for Inner London ex p Douglas-Williams
If there is an omission, there must be a duty to act (see omission template)
Person in being definition:
- Child must be fully born and outside mother; A-G’s Reference (No.3 of 1994)
- Brain dead = not a person in being; Airedale NHS Trust v Bland
- Persistent vegetative state = still person in being
Under the queen’s peace definition:
- Must occur outside the rules of war
Mens rea elements
MR = Intention to kill or intention to cause grievous bodily harm; Cunningham
Murder is a specific intent crime, so only intention can satisfy mens rea
Direct intention:
- The purpose of D’s conduct was to kill or cause grievous bodily harm
- Focus of intention is not on desire or motive, but on purpose
- No scope for mercy killings; Inglis
Indirect intention:
- D has mens rea for murder if there is foresight that their conduct could lead to death;
Hyam
OVERULLED: Foresight must be little short of overwhelming; Moloney
NOTE: Moloney is misleading, because the degree of probability must be considered
(greater probability of consequence = more likely it was foreseen); Hancock and
Shankland
- D must be aware that their actions was virtually certain to cause GBH/death; Woollin
Discuss intoxication if relevant
Defences
Partial defences:
- If no mens rea = involuntary manslaughter
- If there is mens rea but there is diminished responsibility or loss of control = voluntary
manslaughter
NOTE: AR and MR for voluntary manslaughter is the same as murder
Complete defences:
- Self defence
, Voluntary manslaughter
Go through the Murder template before discussing voluntary manslaughter
Introduction
Voluntary manslaughter is a partial defence to murder
- It requires either a loss of control or diminished responsibility
- Look through both and decide which one to pick
Must have AR and MR of murder
Loss of Control
Coroners and Justice Act 2009, Section 54
- S54 (1) Where D kills V, D is not to be convicted of murder if:
- S54 (1) (a) D’s acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted from D’s
loss of control
Loss of control does not need to be sudden – S54 (2)
- S54 (1) (b) The loss of control had a qualifying trigger
- S54 (1) (c) A person of D's sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-
restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or in a similar
way to D.
- S54 (4) Subsection 1 does not apply if D acted in a considered desire for revenge
Seen in Jewel
Definition of loss of control:
- The ‘loss of the ability to act in accordance with considered judgment or a loss of normal
powers of reasoning’; Jewel
- “For the individual with normal capacity of self -restraint and tolerance, unless the
circumstances are extremely grave, normal irritation, and even serious anger do not
often cross the threshold into loss of control.”; Dawes
When can the loss of control defence not be used:
- Loss of control cannot be used if D has incited the violence; Dawes
- Loss of control cannot be used if D has acted in revenge; Jewel
There is arguably a loss of control here as D did…
- However for the loss of control defence to be applicable, there must be a qualifying
trigger
