Topic 3 - Elements of a Crime II (Causation)
Actus Reus
- Act, omission, or event
- Occurring in certain defined circumstances, and/or
- Resulting in a defined consequence
Resulting in a defined consequence
- When the actus reus of an offense includes a prohibited consequence, then the
prosecution has to show the defendant caused that consequence
- For example) in murder or criminal damage, you have to show that the defendant
was the one who killed the person or caused damage
- This is causation
Causation
- Causation: the rules which decide whether a defendant is responsible for harm
1) Factual causation: When you look at the facts to determine whether the
accused act caused the consequence or not
2) Legal causation: requires to see legal requirements
Role of Judge and Jury
- Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279
- Judge is to direct jury on the relevant principles relating to causation
- Consider whether factual causation has been satisfied, and then whether
legal causation has been satisfied
- The jury is to decide whether or not the defendant caused the consequence
- Looks at the facts and apply the law to the facts
- If judge gave wrong directions to the jury, then the decision cannot stand and an
appeal can be made
- In Malaysia, there is no jury so the judge directs himself
Factual Causation - starting point
- Purpose: used to prove the accused act did not result the consequences
- Aka ‘But for… test’
- But for the defendant’s actions, the harm would not have occurred
- What would happen if the accused did not do what he did?
- If the accused did not do what he did, but the consequence still took
place, then what the accused did, did not cause the consequence
- Jury is to look at the facts and decide objectively
- This can only conclude if the accused is innocent, and does not prove guilt
, - White [1910] 2 KB 124
- The accused tried to poison the victim through a lemonade
- The victim drank and suffered heart attack and died
- The heart attack was not caused by the poison
- The jury asks the question “if the accused did not poison the drink,
would the victim still die?” - yes, as the victim died of heart attack
and not the poison
- Held: poison did not cause the death, the accused act did not
cause the consequence
- Factual causation: to prove the accused act did not cause
the consequence
- However, he was still charged for attempted murder,
despite in factual causation, the poison did not lead to his
death
- Dalloway (1847) 2 Cox CC 273
- Accused was driving a horse cart without properly controlling the
reins or looking where he was going and ran over a child
- Held: Not guilty
- Even if he was holding on properly, the child jumped out of
nowhere without any warning, and would still have died
- Accused act did not cause the death
Legal Causation
- Legal causation test: The act must have been a “substantial and operating cause”
- Substantial:
- Does not have to be the sole or main cause
- More than a minimal contribution
- Contributed significantly
- Cheshire [1991] 3 All ER 670 - provides test for legal causation
- Involved medical negligence
- The accused shot the victim and victim was brought to the hospital
- The doctors were negligent and the victim died
- The accused said yes he shot the victim, but he didn’t cause the death but it was
the doctor
- Held: court said even though the doctors may be negligent, the act of shooting
the victim contributed significantly to the death and therefore is said to have
substantially caused the death of the victim
- Legal causation: The act must have been a “substantial and operating
cause”
- Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279
- The accused used the victim as a human shield
Actus Reus
- Act, omission, or event
- Occurring in certain defined circumstances, and/or
- Resulting in a defined consequence
Resulting in a defined consequence
- When the actus reus of an offense includes a prohibited consequence, then the
prosecution has to show the defendant caused that consequence
- For example) in murder or criminal damage, you have to show that the defendant
was the one who killed the person or caused damage
- This is causation
Causation
- Causation: the rules which decide whether a defendant is responsible for harm
1) Factual causation: When you look at the facts to determine whether the
accused act caused the consequence or not
2) Legal causation: requires to see legal requirements
Role of Judge and Jury
- Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279
- Judge is to direct jury on the relevant principles relating to causation
- Consider whether factual causation has been satisfied, and then whether
legal causation has been satisfied
- The jury is to decide whether or not the defendant caused the consequence
- Looks at the facts and apply the law to the facts
- If judge gave wrong directions to the jury, then the decision cannot stand and an
appeal can be made
- In Malaysia, there is no jury so the judge directs himself
Factual Causation - starting point
- Purpose: used to prove the accused act did not result the consequences
- Aka ‘But for… test’
- But for the defendant’s actions, the harm would not have occurred
- What would happen if the accused did not do what he did?
- If the accused did not do what he did, but the consequence still took
place, then what the accused did, did not cause the consequence
- Jury is to look at the facts and decide objectively
- This can only conclude if the accused is innocent, and does not prove guilt
, - White [1910] 2 KB 124
- The accused tried to poison the victim through a lemonade
- The victim drank and suffered heart attack and died
- The heart attack was not caused by the poison
- The jury asks the question “if the accused did not poison the drink,
would the victim still die?” - yes, as the victim died of heart attack
and not the poison
- Held: poison did not cause the death, the accused act did not
cause the consequence
- Factual causation: to prove the accused act did not cause
the consequence
- However, he was still charged for attempted murder,
despite in factual causation, the poison did not lead to his
death
- Dalloway (1847) 2 Cox CC 273
- Accused was driving a horse cart without properly controlling the
reins or looking where he was going and ran over a child
- Held: Not guilty
- Even if he was holding on properly, the child jumped out of
nowhere without any warning, and would still have died
- Accused act did not cause the death
Legal Causation
- Legal causation test: The act must have been a “substantial and operating cause”
- Substantial:
- Does not have to be the sole or main cause
- More than a minimal contribution
- Contributed significantly
- Cheshire [1991] 3 All ER 670 - provides test for legal causation
- Involved medical negligence
- The accused shot the victim and victim was brought to the hospital
- The doctors were negligent and the victim died
- The accused said yes he shot the victim, but he didn’t cause the death but it was
the doctor
- Held: court said even though the doctors may be negligent, the act of shooting
the victim contributed significantly to the death and therefore is said to have
substantially caused the death of the victim
- Legal causation: The act must have been a “substantial and operating
cause”
- Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279
- The accused used the victim as a human shield
