Causation

Causation

• Broadly, to prove causation -
• Defendant’s conduct must be a cause in FACT; and
• Defendant’s conduct must be a cause in LAW.
• Cause in FACT - "but for D’s conduct the consequence would not have
occurred"
• Cause in LAW - D's conduct made a "significant contribution" to the
occurrence of the consequence.
• The defendant must cause the outcome.
 Murder: the stab wound must cause the death.
• This doctrine is known as causation, and it means that the prosecution must
prove a connection between the actus reus and the end result.
• Causation is vital in ‘result crimes’ (i.e. a crime that has a result).
• When a defendant is charged with a result crime it is not enough to prove that
the defendant had the actus reus and mens rea of that crime. He must have
caused the result as well (i.e. the death itself).
• Sometimes, a defendant can have both the actus reus and the mens rea of a
crime, but the death is caused by something else at the last minute!


Chain of causation:

Actus reus of murder
Death
Mens reus of murder
Chain of causation


Types of causation:

• Causation is difficult to prove if there are several causes to juggle with (i.e.,
five defendants).
• If causation cannot be proved, the defendant will be acquitted.
• In criminal law there are two types of causation, factual causation and legal
causation, and the jury decide if both have been met.
• Types of causation:
 Factual causation
 Legal causation

, Factual Causation:

• Factual causation requires the defendant to have caused the outcome as a
fact (i.e., if he was taken out of the equation, it would never have happened).
• This is often called the “but for” test:

“...but for (i.e., “if it wasn’t for”) the defendant’s action,
the victim would not have been hurt...”

• A good way to understand factual causation is to refer to the leading case of
White (1910).
• Modern confirmation that the but-for test is just a starting point: Hughes
(2013).
• Legal causation must also be met - Dalloway (1847).
• White (1910):
 The defendant put cyanide in his mother’s drink in order to kill her. She
drank a quarter of the cup and died of a heart attack. It transpired that
her heart attack was not caused by the cyanide, but from natural
causes.
 The defendant could not be convicted of murder because he was not
the factual cause of her death. He was, however, convicted of
attempted murder instead.

Legal Causation:

• Number of causes: there might be many defendants who satisfy factual
causation.
• Significant cause: there might be many wounds that satisfy factual causation.
• Operating cause: there may be a handful of active wounds or injuries at the
time of death.
• Pagett (1983):
 The usual jury direction may read as follows: “in law the accused’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.”
• A jury may ask these questions (and more) when deliberating legal causation.
• Legal causation: Jury issues
a) How many causes were there?
b) Has there been an intervening act?
c) Has the victim broken the chain of causation?
d) Did medical treatment break the chain of causation?


How many causes?