Criminal lecture 3
Causatin
When assessing liability fir a result crime (e.g murder) it is essental ti deminstrate that the result
was caused by D’s cinduct (ir imissiin)
If the link between D’s cinduct (ir imissiin) cannit be prived beyind reasinable diubt, they
cannit be cinvicted.
Causatin is inly discussed when there is an issue.
Factual causatinn did D’s cinduct/imissiin in fact cause the result?
Legal causatinn was D’s cinduct a substantall blamewirthy and iperatng cause
Must have bith factual and legal causatin fir a cinvictin
Factual causatin
The but fir testn but fir the defendants cinduct/imissiin, wiuld the result have iccurred.
If yes, there is ni causatinn R v White 1910 sin tried ti piisin his mither, but she died if natural
causes, there was ni causatin, nit guilty fir murder
Mire than 1 persin causing a result
can bith/all be guiltyn R v Benge 1846**
Omissiinn if a result wiuld have iccurred but fir D’s imissiin ti act in accirdance with their dutyn
in ither wirdsn if D wiuld have prevented it had the acted…
Legal causatin
Principles
Legal cause must be substantal
D’s rile must be mire than de minimis and nit slight ir trifing, negligible, insubstantal ir
insignificant.
Legal cause must be blame wirthy
Blamewirthyn usually ibviius, inly discuss if the result ciuld nit have been aviided by D
Where blamewirthy cinduct was nit the legal cause if deathn R v Dalliway 1847 driver ir a hirse
and cart, small child ran inti the riad and git ran iver by the hirse and cart and died, at the tme
the law said the driver if the hirse and cart must at all tmes hild in ti the reins if the hirse.
Dalliway was nit hilding inti the reins as he was quite cinfident the hirse knew the cirrect way.
Even if he was hilding the reins he wiuld nit have been able ti prevent the childs death si nit
guilty.
R v Hughes 2013n D was driving at nirmal speed, faultlessly , frim the ither directin a car
appriached and swerved inti D, the ither driver was intixicated and he died. D was uninsured
which is an ifence if strict liability ti cause a death while uninsured hiwever he was fiund nit
guilty as there was ni causatin.
R v Taylir 2016(SC reafrms Hughes 2013)
Causatin
When assessing liability fir a result crime (e.g murder) it is essental ti deminstrate that the result
was caused by D’s cinduct (ir imissiin)
If the link between D’s cinduct (ir imissiin) cannit be prived beyind reasinable diubt, they
cannit be cinvicted.
Causatin is inly discussed when there is an issue.
Factual causatinn did D’s cinduct/imissiin in fact cause the result?
Legal causatinn was D’s cinduct a substantall blamewirthy and iperatng cause
Must have bith factual and legal causatin fir a cinvictin
Factual causatin
The but fir testn but fir the defendants cinduct/imissiin, wiuld the result have iccurred.
If yes, there is ni causatinn R v White 1910 sin tried ti piisin his mither, but she died if natural
causes, there was ni causatin, nit guilty fir murder
Mire than 1 persin causing a result
can bith/all be guiltyn R v Benge 1846**
Omissiinn if a result wiuld have iccurred but fir D’s imissiin ti act in accirdance with their dutyn
in ither wirdsn if D wiuld have prevented it had the acted…
Legal causatin
Principles
Legal cause must be substantal
D’s rile must be mire than de minimis and nit slight ir trifing, negligible, insubstantal ir
insignificant.
Legal cause must be blame wirthy
Blamewirthyn usually ibviius, inly discuss if the result ciuld nit have been aviided by D
Where blamewirthy cinduct was nit the legal cause if deathn R v Dalliway 1847 driver ir a hirse
and cart, small child ran inti the riad and git ran iver by the hirse and cart and died, at the tme
the law said the driver if the hirse and cart must at all tmes hild in ti the reins if the hirse.
Dalliway was nit hilding inti the reins as he was quite cinfident the hirse knew the cirrect way.
Even if he was hilding the reins he wiuld nit have been able ti prevent the childs death si nit
guilty.
R v Hughes 2013n D was driving at nirmal speed, faultlessly , frim the ither directin a car
appriached and swerved inti D, the ither driver was intixicated and he died. D was uninsured
which is an ifence if strict liability ti cause a death while uninsured hiwever he was fiund nit
guilty as there was ni causatin.
R v Taylir 2016(SC reafrms Hughes 2013)
