Actus Reus: Causation (Copy)
Actus Reus: Causation
(England And Wales — Case Law & Statutes Only — Tabular, Quick-Revision, Examiner-Focused)
Meaning Of Causation In Criminal Law
| Authority | Principle | Examiner Focus |
|---|---|---|
| Common law | Defendant’s conduct must cause the prohibited result | Link between actus reus and harm |
| R v White (1910) | “But for” the defendant’s act, would the result have occurred? | Factual causation test |
- Causation applies only to result crimes
- Prosecution must prove:
- Factual causation
- Legal causation
Stage 1: Factual Causation
The “But For” Test
| Case | Rule | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| R v White (1910) | But for the defendant’s act, would death have occurred? | No factual causation |
| R v Roberts (1971) | If result would not have happened but for act | Factual causation satisfied |
- If answer is yes → factual causation established
- If answer is no → causation fails immediately
Limitations Of Factual Causation
| Case | Issue | Examiner Point |
|---|---|---|
| R v Smith (1959) | Multiple causes | “But for” too simplistic |
| R v Jordan (1956) | Independent cause | Leads to legal causation analysis |
- Factual causation alone is not sufficient
- Must proceed to legal causation
Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia (AYLOTI), World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions And 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course
Stage 2: Legal Causation
General Legal Test
| Authority | Rule | Examiner Focus |
|---|---|---|
| R v Smith (1959) | Defendant’s act must be an operating and substantial cause | Main legal test |
| R v Kimsey (1996) | Cause need not be sole or main | “More than minimal” |
- Defendant’s act must:
- Be more than minimal
- Still be operating at time of result
Operating And Substantial Cause
| Case | Facts | Legal Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| R v Smith (1959) | Stabbing + poor medical treatment | Original act still operating |
| R v Cheshire (1991) | Shooting + medical negligence | Defendant still liable |
| R v Malcherek (1981) | Brain death after attack | Causation satisfied |
- Poor medical treatment usually does not break the chain
- Original act remains legally effective unless completely eclipsed
Novus Actus Interveniens (Breaking The Chain)
Meaning
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Novus actus interveniens | New intervening act breaking causation |
Intervening Acts By Third Parties
| Case | Intervening Act | Chain Broken? |
|---|---|---|
| R v Jordan (1956) | Grossly negligent medical treatment | Yes |
| R v Smith (1959) | Normal negligent treatment | No |
| R v Cheshire (1991) | Independent medical negligence | No |
- Only extraordinary and independent acts break the chain
Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia (AYLOTI), World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions And 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course
Victim’s Own Acts As Intervening Causes
Escape Or Reaction Cases
| Case | Victim Action | Chain Broken? |
|---|---|---|
| R v Roberts (1971) | Jumped from moving car | No |
| R v Williams and Davis (1992) | Jumped from car (reasonable fear test) | Depends |
| R v Mackie (1973) | Ran into road due to threats | No |
Legal Test
| Authority | Test |
|---|---|
| R v Williams and Davis (1992) | Was victim’s reaction reasonably foreseeable? |
- If reaction is reasonable → chain intact
- If reaction is daft or unforeseeable → chain broken
Thin Skull Rule (Victim Characteristics)
| Case | Principle | Examiner Focus |
|---|---|---|
| R v Blaue (1975) | Take victim as you find them | Refusal of blood transfusion |
| R v Hayward (1908) | Pre-existing condition irrelevant | Defendant still liable |
- Defendant liable for full consequences
- Victim’s beliefs, health or vulnerabilities irrelevant
Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia (AYLOTI), World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions And 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course
Omissions And Causation
| Case | Omission | Result |
|---|---|---|
| R v Miller (1983) | Failed to extinguish fire | Death |
| R v Evans (2009) | Failed to summon medical help | Death |
- Where a legal duty exists:
- Omission can cause the result
- Causation applies equally to omissions
Multiple Causes
| Case | Principle | Examiner Point |
|---|---|---|
| R v Kimsey (1996) | Defendant need not be main cause | Contribution sufficient |
| R v Benge (1865) | Multiple defendants can cause death | Shared liability |
Time Gap And Causation
| Case | Time Issue | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| R v Smith (1959) | Time lapse before death | Causation intact |
| R v Malcherek (1981) | Brain death later | Result still caused |
- Passage of time alone does not break causation
Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia (AYLOTI), World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions And 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course
Examiner Comparison Table
| Situation | Causation Result | Authority |
|---|---|---|
| Victim dies of heart attack before poison works | No causation | White |
| Victim jumps to escape threat | Usually no break | Roberts |
| Gross medical error | Chain broken | Jordan |
| Religious refusal of treatment | No break | Blaue |
| Defendant contributes minimally | Still liable | Kimsey |
Examiner Hotspots
| Issue | Key Authority |
|---|---|
| Factual causation | White |
| Legal causation | Smith |
| Medical negligence | Cheshire |
| Victim actions | Williams and Davis |
| Thin skull | Blaue |
| Omissions | Miller / Evans |
High-Yield Examiner Lines
- “Causation requires both factual and legal causation”
- “The defendant’s act must be an operating and substantial cause”
- “The chain of causation is broken only by a novus actus interveniens”
- “Victim characteristics do not break causation under the thin skull rule”
- “Where a duty exists, an omission may satisfy causation”
Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia (AYLOTI), World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions And 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course