18th October 2019
Lecture 4: Actus Reus – Causation:
- Result has to be actually (causily) connected to the conduct of D (fact and law) =
causation
- Chain of causation cannot be broken in order to find liability
- It must be D who actually caused the result
- If D’s conduct didn’t cause the result, then there is no liability
o EG D throwing a stone at V’s window = little doubt that damage to that
window was caused by D’s actions
- Two stages that have to be satisfied in order to establish causation:
o Causation in fact – did the result come about because of D’s conduct? Would
the result have taken place irrespective of D’s conduct?
Known as ‘but for’ causation, it requires D’s act to have been a
necessary condition in order for the result to have occurred
“But for the defendant’s conduct, would the proscribed result
have occurred?”
o EG White (1910)
Put poison into mother’s drink and it isn’t clear
as to whether she actually drank any of it
Mother had actually died due to a completely
unrelated heart condition
Therefore, D was found guilty of attempted
murder
Why? Because no causal relationship between
the son’s conduct (poison into drink) and the
result (the mother’s death) therefore, he wasn’t
held liable for murder
o What happens when D accelerates the result?
If the mother had died as a result of the poison
then factual causation would have been
established and D would have been held liable
for murder
D had accelerated his mother’s death (because
everyone is going to die at some point)
We don’t need to show that what D was the only (or even the main)
cause of death
Factual causation can be very broad, and only constitutes an initial
condition for criminal liability
Benge (1846)
o Misread the timetable for rail tracks and the train
arrived when the tracks were not in the right place, the
victim was killed
o D argued that the death of V could have been avoided
if someone before him had done his job properly OR if
the train driver had done his job properly
Lecture 4: Actus Reus – Causation:
- Result has to be actually (causily) connected to the conduct of D (fact and law) =
causation
- Chain of causation cannot be broken in order to find liability
- It must be D who actually caused the result
- If D’s conduct didn’t cause the result, then there is no liability
o EG D throwing a stone at V’s window = little doubt that damage to that
window was caused by D’s actions
- Two stages that have to be satisfied in order to establish causation:
o Causation in fact – did the result come about because of D’s conduct? Would
the result have taken place irrespective of D’s conduct?
Known as ‘but for’ causation, it requires D’s act to have been a
necessary condition in order for the result to have occurred
“But for the defendant’s conduct, would the proscribed result
have occurred?”
o EG White (1910)
Put poison into mother’s drink and it isn’t clear
as to whether she actually drank any of it
Mother had actually died due to a completely
unrelated heart condition
Therefore, D was found guilty of attempted
murder
Why? Because no causal relationship between
the son’s conduct (poison into drink) and the
result (the mother’s death) therefore, he wasn’t
held liable for murder
o What happens when D accelerates the result?
If the mother had died as a result of the poison
then factual causation would have been
established and D would have been held liable
for murder
D had accelerated his mother’s death (because
everyone is going to die at some point)
We don’t need to show that what D was the only (or even the main)
cause of death
Factual causation can be very broad, and only constitutes an initial
condition for criminal liability
Benge (1846)
o Misread the timetable for rail tracks and the train
arrived when the tracks were not in the right place, the
victim was killed
o D argued that the death of V could have been avoided
if someone before him had done his job properly OR if
the train driver had done his job properly
