Law Essay: Causation

‘Liability in criminal law normally requires the prosecution to establish that the accused has caused the relevant prohibited consequences to occur. For instance, in homicide that the accused caused the victim’s death.’

Explain by reference to decided cases how the courts have approached the requirement of causation

Causation is usually raised when result crimes are committed and means that the result of that crime must be proved by the prosecution to have been caused by the defendants act. The prosecution has to show that the defendants conduct was the factual and legal cause of the consequence and there was no intervening act to break the chain of causation.

The factual cause is when the consequence would not have happened ‘but for’ the defendants conduct. This can be seen in the case of Pagett. Pagett was found guilty of manslaughter because the girl would not have died but for him using her as a shield from police bullets.

In some cases there may be more than one act contributing to the consequence and some of these acts may be done by people other than the defendant. However the rule is that the defendant can be guilty if his conduct was more than a minimal cause of the consequence. The defendants conduct doesn’t need to be a substantial cause. In the case of Kimsey the defendant was in a high speed car chase with a friend when he lost control was not very clear however the defendant was still found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving. The Court of Appeal upheld this conviction saying that the defendant was guilty as long as there was more than a slight or trifling link.

If the result of the crime is caused by an intervening act which is sufficiently independent of the defendants act and not foreseeable then the defendant will not be liable. This occurred in Jordan where the victim was stabbed but healing well. However, he had a severe allergic reaction to large dose of medicine he received and died. The defendant was found not guilty because the cause of the victim’s death was unconnected with the defendants act and so the chain of causation was broken.

The chain of causation can be broken by an act of a third party, the victim’s own act or a natural but unpredictable event. In Williams a hitchhiker jumped from the defendant’s car because the defendant was trying to steal his wallet and died from head injuries. The defendant was found not guilty and the Court of Appeal said the victims act had to be foreseeable and in proportion to the threat. If the victims act is unreasonable then the chain of causation is broken.

Where the result is caused by a combination of the defendants act and an intervening act and the defendants act remains a substantial cause then the defendant will be liable. This can be seen in Smith where the victim was stabbed and poor medical treatment made the injury worse and he died. Despite the poor medical treatment lessening the victim’s chances of recovery by 75%, the defendant was still found guilty of murder. This is because the defendants act was still a substantial and operating cause at the time of death.

Medical treatment is unlikely to break the chain of causation because it would make doctors unsure about performing certain treatments if they thought they could be accused of manslaughter. An example of this is Cheshire where the victim was shot but had nearly healed. He was given a tracheotomy and died from complications of it that weren’t diagnosed by the doctors. The defendant was found guilty of murder and the Court of Appeal said there was medical negligence but defendants acts contributed significantly so he was liable.

Robyn