Causation & Recklessness
Cases of omissions [and duties to act]
- Voluntary assumption of duty defendant would be held culpable for omission
o Especially if plaintiff was aware of such voluntary assumption thus relied entirely
on defendant for such duty of care
- Creation of a dangerous situation
o To be criminally liable, you have to
Create a dangerous situation
Subjectively realize that you created the dangerous situation
Fail to take reasonable steps to prevent the dangerous situation
Causation
Steps:
1. Factual Causation
2. Legal Causation
3. Third Party Intervention
4. Have we got recklessness?
5. Consider exceptions based on case law
R v Kennedy
‘causation is not a single unvarying concept to be mechanically applied without regard to the context
in which the question arises’
Factual causation
‘But for’ test
If D had acted differently, would the same result occur in exactly the same way?
- If yes, defendant cannot be blamed for it
- If no, defendant can possibly be blamed for it but it is not automatically so
NOTE: ‘but for’ test is merely a qualification test – you have to pass it to get further, but it does not
sufficiently amount to culpability
Legal causation
‘Significant’ (or ‘substantial) cause
- R v Hughes
o Defendant’s conduct does not have to be the main cause of the consequence, it just
has to be a significant cause – in the sense that it is a more than minimal cause
- R v Blaue
o ‘Thin skull rule’ – Need to consider the victim’s specific characteristics as long as
D’s act directly caused the result, it counts as a cause even if it was unlikely
NOTE:
There can be multiple causes – even if one person is found guilty, other people can still be culpable
Cases of omissions [and duties to act]
- Voluntary assumption of duty defendant would be held culpable for omission
o Especially if plaintiff was aware of such voluntary assumption thus relied entirely
on defendant for such duty of care
- Creation of a dangerous situation
o To be criminally liable, you have to
Create a dangerous situation
Subjectively realize that you created the dangerous situation
Fail to take reasonable steps to prevent the dangerous situation
Causation
Steps:
1. Factual Causation
2. Legal Causation
3. Third Party Intervention
4. Have we got recklessness?
5. Consider exceptions based on case law
R v Kennedy
‘causation is not a single unvarying concept to be mechanically applied without regard to the context
in which the question arises’
Factual causation
‘But for’ test
If D had acted differently, would the same result occur in exactly the same way?
- If yes, defendant cannot be blamed for it
- If no, defendant can possibly be blamed for it but it is not automatically so
NOTE: ‘but for’ test is merely a qualification test – you have to pass it to get further, but it does not
sufficiently amount to culpability
Legal causation
‘Significant’ (or ‘substantial) cause
- R v Hughes
o Defendant’s conduct does not have to be the main cause of the consequence, it just
has to be a significant cause – in the sense that it is a more than minimal cause
- R v Blaue
o ‘Thin skull rule’ – Need to consider the victim’s specific characteristics as long as
D’s act directly caused the result, it counts as a cause even if it was unlikely
NOTE:
There can be multiple causes – even if one person is found guilty, other people can still be culpable
