What is Causation?
In result
crimes such as murder it is necessary to show that the unlawful act of the
accused actually caused the harm to the victim.
The law operates a two-stage test.
It asks first whether the accused in fact caused the harm (the factual
test), and, if so, whether he is liable in law (the legal test).
The Factual Cause
This uses the “but for” test. In this first test the court will consider whether the harm would have happened “but for” the unlawful action of the accused.
R v White
White put some potassium cyanide into his mother’s wine glass, intending to kill her as he would inherit under her will. In fact, the dose was too small to succeed. Nevertheless, her body was found soon afterwards on the settee in her living room. The full glass was next to her, with some of the poisoned drink still in it. Medical evidence showed that she had died of heart failure, not of cyanide poisoning. Nor was there any link between the poison and the heart attack.
It was decided on appeal that he could not be convicted of murder as he had not caused her death.
R v Pagett - It was decided that the action of the police was foreseeable, and Pagett had therefore caused his girlfriend’s death.
The Legal Cause
Once it has been established that the accused is the factual cause of the harm suffered by the victim, it then has to be shown that he is also the legal cause. This makes sure that people are not found guilty when they are not to blame for the end result. The court asks whether the defendant’s act continues to make a significant contribution to the end result.
R v Smith - Smith was convicted of murder
The original wound was still an operating and substantial cause at the time of the death.
However, the chain of causation may be broken, either by the victim or by some unforeseeable event.
(i) by the victim
The defendant will not be the legal cause if he can show that the victim caused the end result himself. However, this will only succeed if the victim’s reaction was totally unreasonable.
R v Roberts - The victim jumped out of a car travelling over 20 mph after the driver, who was giving her a lift to a party, told her to undress and grabbed her coat. He also told her that he had beaten up other girls who had refused. The question before the CA was whether he was responsible for her injuries. He was responsible as the victim’s reactions were reasonable
Similarly, the chain of causation is not broken by any particular condition of the victim that makes him more susceptible to harm. Where the victim has a particular susceptibility, for example a thin skull, that makes him particularly susceptible to harm, the defendant must “take his victim as he finds him”. In other words, he is responsible for all the harm that he causes, even harm he couldn’t have foreseen
R v Blaue - Because of her religious beliefs as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses she refused a blood transfusion which doctors said could have saved her life
People must take their victims as they find them. This includes their religious beliefs.
(ii) by an unforeseeable event
In cases of bad medical treatment the accused will rarely escape liability. However, an example of a case where the defendant succeeded is:
R v Jordan - There had been a series of medical errors, and these had been the sole cause of his victim’s death. The court said that the medical treatment was “palpably wrong"
