Rianna Treasure

Explain using cases and/or examples the meaning of causation

Causation is the link between the defendant’s act and the criminal consequence. The
rules of causation are applied to decide whether the defendant’s guilty act caused the
required consequence of a particular crime. In many cases causation is not an issue;
however when it is less clear the prosecution must prove both factual and legal
causation.

Under factual causation, the defendant can only be guilty if the consequence would
not have happened ‘but for’ his act. In the case of White, the defendant put cyanide in
his Mother’s drink intending to kill her. She died shortly thereafter as a result of a
heart attack, unrelated to the poison. Whilst White had intended to kill her and she
had died, he had not caused her death and therefore could not be guilty of murder.
In the case of Pagett, the defendant used his girlfriend as a human shield whilst he
shot at armed police, the police fired back and Gail died. Pagett was convicted of
Gail’s manslaughter as ‘but for’ his use of her as a human shield, she would not have
died.

Once factual causation has been established, the prosecution must also prove legal
causation. In order for the defendant to have criminal liability, the chain of causation
(the link between the act and the consequence) must remain unbroken in order. The
‘operating and substantial’ cause is the key test for legal causation and means that the
victims original injury must be the ‘operating and substantial cause’ at the time of
their death or final injury. Two cases involving medical intervention illustrate this
test, however it must be taken into consideration that there is a degree of sympathy for
doctors and will only be considered to have caused the injury or death if treatment is
‘palpably wrong.’ In the case of Jordan the victim whose original wounds has almost
healed, was given an incorrect injection by a doctor and died. The medical treatment
was classified as ‘palpably wrong’, therefore there was no legal causation and the
defendant was acquitted as the original injury was not the ‘operating and substantial’
cause of death. In the case of Smith it was held that the defendant’s stabbing wound
was the ‘operating and substantial’ cause of the victims death, and that the victim
clearly died from loss of blood caused by the stab wound and not by the doctor’s
negligent treatment.

Sometimes the cause of the death or injury can be a completely independent act; this
is known as Novus Actus Interveniens and will break the chain of causation. In the
case of Malcherek the defendant argued that the doctors had broken the chain of
causation by switching off the life support machine. However it was held that the
‘operating and substantial’ cause had been the original wounds inflicted by the
defendant and switching off the life support machine did not cause a break in the
chain of causation.

The general principal is that ‘you take your victim’ as you find him, this is also
known as the thin skull rule and means that the law does not take into account any
particular characteristics of the victim, the fact that the victim has a think skull would
be a risk the defendant takes. In the case of Blaue the victim was stabbed by the
defendant, and refused a life saving blood transfusion as it was against her religious
beliefs. The defendant argued her refusal of a blood transfusion broke the chain of
Rianna Treasure

causation; however the defendant had to take his victim as her found her, meaning not
just her physical condition but also her religious beliefs.

Finally, if the defendant causes the victim to act in a foreseeable way, then the
victim’s own act will not break the chain of causation. In Roberts it was held that it
was foreseeable for the victim to jump out a car as the defendant had made sexual
advances towards her, and that her conduct was reasonable. However in Williams the
victims’ actions were deemed unreasonable when he jumped from a moving car and
died as the defendants had allegedly tried to rob him. The chain of causation was
broken as the victims act was so unexpected that no reasonable man could be
expected to foresee it.