Changing the way you learn

Criminal law causation

It is proving that the defendants actions were the cause of the result
3 things must be determined for causation to be proven
1. 1. The defendants actions were the factual cause
2. 2. the defendants conduct was the cause of the incident
3. 3. there were no intervening acts that broke the chain of causation
Factual cause
1. For the factual cause to be proven it must be shown that ...
  1. the consequence would not have happened 'but for ' the defendants conduct
    1. Illustrated in Benge
      1. 'but for' the foremans actions the train would not have be derailed
    2. The opposite was seen in white the mother died prior to the consumption of the poisonous milk by a heart attack
      1. Defendant therefore didnt cause the death but was guilty of attempted murder
2. 'but for test'
De minus test
1. this test is also considered (the actions were not the substantive cause of the result)
  1. they are only minimal and can be disregarded
    1. Cato
      1. Herion intake given by defendant whom had made own solution up = claiment DEATH
The legal cause
1. Must be proven that the defewndants actions were the significant cause of the result
  1. More than a "slight or trifling link"
    1. Kimsey
  2. In paget
    1. The boyfriend was the significant cause to her death as he held his girlfriend as a shield
No intervening acts
1. no intervening acts between the act and the result
2. Jordan is one of the few cases where there is an intervening act
  1. It shows that the hospitals actions were palpably wrong
Thin skull rule
1. Take your victim as you find them
  1. Blave

Next up

Criminal law causation

Description

Resource summary

Similar

	Created by hayley over 11 years ago