Core principles of criminal liability - Causation in criminal law

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising from the use of the content on this page. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Overview

Causation is a key element in criminal law, linking a defendant's actions to the resulting harm. For legal candidates tackling the SQE1 FLK2 exam, understanding causation is vital. This article explores factual and legal causation, landmark cases, and practical applications to prepare you for complex scenarios in exams and your legal career.

Factual Causation: The "But For" Test

Factual causation relies on the "but for" test, asking: "But for the defendant's actions, would the harm have occurred?" If the answer is no, causation is established.

Example

A defendant sets fire to a building, resulting in a fatality. If it's proven that "but for" the act of arson, the death wouldn't have happened, factual causation is established.

Limitations of the "But For" Test

The test faces challenges with multiple contributing factors. If two people inflict fatal wounds on a victim, each action might be a "but for" cause, complicating matters.

In such cases, courts may apply the "substantial factor" test, assessing whether the defendant's conduct was instrumental in the outcome.

Legal Causation: The "Substantial and Operating Cause" Test

Legal causation extends beyond factual links, requiring the defendant’s actions to be a major cause of the harm.

Example

A defendant punches a victim, causing minor injuries. Later, the victim is in a traffic accident and suffers a severe injury. Legal causation examines if the initial punch contributed significantly to the victim's harm.

Foreseeability and Remoteness

Legal causation considers the foreseeability of outcomes. Defendants aren't usually held responsible for extremely unusual consequences.

Case Law: R v. Roberts (1971) A girl jumped from a car to escape the defendant’s advances, sustaining injuries. The court found her response foreseeable, keeping the causal link between the conduct and injuries.

The Thin Skull Rule

The thin skull rule mandates taking victims as they are, even if vulnerabilities are undisclosed.

Example: A defendant punches a victim with an undiagnosed condition. Despite the unexpected severity, the defendant is liable due to the victim’s condition.

Intervening Acts and Novus Actus Interveniens

An intervening act, or novus actus interveniens, can break the causal chain, absolving the original defendant. These acts can include:

  1. Actions of third parties
  2. Natural events
  3. Victim's own actions

Voluntary Acts of the Victim

Case Law: R v. Kennedy (No 2) [2007] Kennedy prepared heroin for a friend, who self-injected and died. The House of Lords ruled the victim's voluntary act broke the chain, acquitting Kennedy.

Medical Intervention

Medical treatment, even if negligent, generally doesn't break causation unless it replaces the original cause.

Case Law: R v. Jordan (1956) The victim died due to negligent medical care days after being stabbed. The court ruled the treatment, not the stabbing, was the main cause of death.

Complex Causation Scenarios

Multiple Causes and Accelerated Death

If a defendant's act hastens an inevitable death, it's still considered a cause.

Example: A defendant poisons a terminally ill victim, causing an earlier death. The act is a contributory cause despite inevitable death.

Omissions and Causation

Establishing causation in omission cases is challenging, as shown in key cases.

Case Law: R v. Gibbins and Proctor (1918) Defendants convicted of murder for failing to feed a child. The omission was as causal as a direct act of violence.

Practical Application: Analyzing Complex Causation

Consider this scenario:

A factory owner neglects safety protocols. A fire starts, leading to a worker's fall and subsequent injuries from an explosion. The worker dies due to the fall and injuries from the explosion.

Analysis:

  1. Factual Causation: Would the worker have died without the owner’s negligence? Likely, yes, as the negligence led to the fire and ensuing events.

  2. Legal Causation:

    • Was the worker's death foreseeable due to the owner's negligence? Initial injuries were foreseeable.
    • The explosion is complex; factory fires can make such events foreseeable, maintaining the chain.
  3. Intervening Acts:

    • The fall results directly from the evacuation. The explosion, though arguable as intervening, might not break the chain given the context.
  4. Multiple Causes: Death came from fall and explosion injuries. Law can recognize several legal causes.

A court would likely find the owner's negligence a substantial cause of the worker’s death, despite intervening events.

Conclusion

Understanding causation in criminal law is crucial for the SQE1 FLK2 exam and future legal work. Key takeaways include:

  1. Factual causation uses the "but for" test, considering multiple causes.
  2. Legal causation demands that actions play a major role in harm.
  3. Foreseeability and the thin skull rule are vital.
  4. Intervening acts may disrupt causation based on their nature.
  5. Complex scenarios need careful examination.

Mastering these principles and landmark cases will prepare you for the complexities of causation in criminal law, both in exams and practice.