Actus Reus Part 2: Results and Causation

Study Flashcards Play Quiz

Questions and Answers

In the case R v Malcherek, the defendant was acquitted of murder because the doctors' decision to switch off the life support machine broke the chain of causation.

False

The defendant in R v Chesire was found not guilty of murder because the doctor's negligently performed tracheotomy was an independent and potent cause of the victim's death.

False

The 'but for' test is used to establish legal causation.

True

In R v Empress Car Co, the defendant was held not liable for the pollution of the river because the third party's act of releasing the oil was a voluntary and unforeseeable act.

False Signup and view all the answers

A defendant can be found guilty of attempted murder even if the intended result did not occur.

True Signup and view all the answers

The case of R v Empress Car Co set a precedent for all cases involving third-party acts, and not just pollution cases.

False Signup and view all the answers

If there are multiple causes, the defendant must be the only or main cause to be held liable.

False Signup and view all the answers

The test for determining the legal cause of death in R v Chesire was whether the doctor's acts were a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's actions.

False Signup and view all the answers

A defendant's conduct must be the sole cause of the result to establish legal causation.

False Signup and view all the answers

In R v Malcherek, the court held that the doctors' decision to switch off the life support machine was a voluntary and unforeseeable act that broke the chain of causation.

False Signup and view all the answers

The defendant can be held liable for injuries if the victim's actions were reasonably foreseeable.

True Signup and view all the answers

The defendant's conduct must be blameworthy to establish legal causation.

True Signup and view all the answers

An act of God can break the chain of causation and relieve the defendant of liability.

True Signup and view all the answers

In R v Kennedy (no 2), the defendant was found guilty of murder.

False Signup and view all the answers

The defendant's conduct must be the immediate cause of the result to establish legal causation.

False Signup and view all the answers

The vulnerabilities of the victim can break the chain of causation.

False Signup and view all the answers

Foreseeable events by the victim will break the chain of causation.

False Signup and view all the answers

In R v Dear, the defendant was acquitted of murder due to a break in the chain of causation.

False Signup and view all the answers

In R v Wallace, the defendant was found guilty of murder due to the victim's decision to end their life via euthanasia.

False Signup and view all the answers

The defendant's conduct must be more than negligible to establish legal causation.

True Signup and view all the answers

The presence of multiple causes will always undermine the defendant's liability.

False Signup and view all the answers

Interventions from a third party are always considered unforeseeable and will break the chain of causation.

False Signup and view all the answers

In R v Michael, the defendant was not held responsible for the death of the child.

False Signup and view all the answers

Medical negligence can never break the chain of causation.

False Signup and view all the answers

In R v Jordan, the defendant was found guilty of murder due to the doctor's negligence.

False Signup and view all the answers

The defendant's acts need to be the sole cause of death in order to be convicted of murder.

False Signup and view all the answers

Factual causation is used to determine legal liability.

False Signup and view all the answers

Legal causation can exist without factual causation.

False Signup and view all the answers

Conduct crimes require a result element.

False Signup and view all the answers

If the chain of causation is established, the defendant may be guilty of the offence.

True Signup and view all the answers

The 'but for' test is used to determine legal causation.

False Signup and view all the answers

Intervening acts can break the chain of causation.

True Signup and view all the answers

What is the essential element in establishing a causal link between conduct and the result?

Causal connection Signup and view all the answers

Which type of crime does not require a result element?

Conduct crime Signup and view all the answers

What is the purpose of legal causation?

To determine where responsibility for liability rests Signup and view all the answers

What is the 'but for' test used for?

To determine factual causation Signup and view all the answers

What is the relationship between factual and legal causation?

Factual causation is a prerequisite for legal causation Signup and view all the answers

What is the consequence if the chain of causation is established?

The defendant may be guilty of the offence if the actus reus and mens rea can be proved Signup and view all the answers

What was the court's decision regarding the doctors' actions in R v Malcherek?

It was a necessary act that did not break the chain of causation. Signup and view all the answers

What is the test used to determine whether a third party's act breaks the chain of causation in R v Chesire?

Whether the third party's act was an independent and potent cause of death Signup and view all the answers

What is the significance of the case of R v Empress Car Co?

It is only relevant to pollution cases Signup and view all the answers

What is the general principle regarding the chain of causation in cases involving medical negligence?

Medical negligence can break the chain of causation if it is an independent and potent cause of death Signup and view all the answers

What is the role of the defendant's actions in establishing legal causation?

The defendant's actions must be a significant contributing factor to the death Signup and view all the answers

What is the significance of the doctor's tracheotomy in R v Chesire?

It was a negligent act that contributed to the victim's death, but did not break the chain of causation Signup and view all the answers

In R v Blaue, the defendant was charged with manslaughter. What was the reason for the victim's death?

The victim's refusal to receive a blood transfusion. Signup and view all the answers

What is a key principle in determining the liability of a defendant?

The defendant's conduct must be the main cause of death. Signup and view all the answers

In R v Michael, what was the court's decision regarding the defendant's liability?

The defendant was liable for the child's death. Signup and view all the answers

What is an important consideration when determining the liability of a defendant?

All of the above. Signup and view all the answers

In R v Dear, what was the court's decision regarding the defendant's liability?

The defendant was convicted of murder as the victim's cause of bleeding was due to the defendant's actions. Signup and view all the answers

In R v Jordan, what was the court's decision regarding the defendant's liability?

The defendant was not guilty of murder as the doctor's act broke the chain of causation. Signup and view all the answers

What is a key principle in determining the liability of a defendant regarding the actions of a third party?

The third party's actions will break the chain of causation if they are voluntary and informed. Signup and view all the answers

In R v Kennedy (no 2), what was the court's decision regarding the defendant's liability?

The defendant was not guilty of murder as the victim's act of self-injecting heroin broke the chain of causation. Signup and view all the answers

What is a key principle in determining the liability of a defendant regarding the actions of the victim?

The victim's actions will not break the chain of causation if they are reasonably foreseeable. Signup and view all the answers

What is the test used to establish factual causation?

But for test Signup and view all the answers

What are the three requirements for legal causation?

Factual, blameworthy, and operative Signup and view all the answers

In R v Smith, what was the court's decision regarding the defendant's liability?

The defendant was not guilty of murder as the doctor's negligence broke the chain of causation. Signup and view all the answers

In R v White, the defendant was found guilty of attempted murder even though the victim died from a heart attack rather than the poison. Why was this?

Because the defendant's conduct was blameworthy Signup and view all the answers

What can break the chain of causation?

All of the above Signup and view all the answers

In R v Benge, what was the defendant found guilty of?

Gross negligence manslaughter Signup and view all the answers

What is required for legal causation?

The defendant's conduct must be a substantial and blameworthy cause of the result Signup and view all the answers

What happens if there are multiple causes of the result?

The defendant's conduct must have contributed to the result Signup and view all the answers

In R v Dalloway, why was the defendant not found guilty of gross negligence manslaughter?

Because the defendant's conduct was not the factual cause of death Signup and view all the answers

What is an example of an intervening act that can break the chain of causation?

All of the above Signup and view all the answers

In what situation can the defendant still be found guilty of attempted murder?

Even if the intended result does not occur Signup and view all the answers

Study Notes

Causation in Law

Factual causation: the physical chain of events between the defendant's conduct and the specified result
Legal causation: establishes where the responsibility for the liability rests, requires factual causation

But for Test

Used to establish factual causation
Question: "But for the defendant's conduct, would the consequences have occurred?"

Chain of Causation

Can be broken by:
- Voluntary events (R v Kennedy (no 2))
- Intervening acts (R v Dear, R v Wallace)
Not broken by:
- Vulnerabilities of the victim (R v Blaue)

Third Party Interventions

Foreseeability: like interventions by the victim, foreseeable events will not break the chain of causation (R v A)
Voluntariness: the intervening act must be 'free, deliberate and informed' (R v Michael)

Medical Negligence

Can break the chain of causation (R v Jordan)
Must be overwhelmingly negligent (R v Smith)

Result Crimes

Require a result element (e.g. murder)
The actus reus is complete when the defendant performs conduct in certain proscribed circumstances, with the conduct causing the proscribed result

Conduct Crimes

Do not need to include a result element (e.g. perjury)
The actus reus is complete when the defendant performs the proscribed conduct### Causation in Law
The "but for" test is used to establish causation in law, where it is asked whether the outcome would have occurred but for the defendant's conduct.

Factual Causation

The defendant is generally liable for all natural and reasonably foreseeable consequences of their action.
R v White: The defendant was found guilty of attempted murder, despite the victim dying from a heart attack, as the defendant's actions were a cause of the victim's death.
Accelerating a result is still considered causing it, as long as the defendant's actions contributed to the result occurring when it did.

Multiple Causes

R v Benge: The defendant was found guilty of gross negligence manslaughter, despite multiple causes contributing to the victim's death, as the defendant's actions were still a factual cause.
If there are multiple causes, the defendant's contribution to the act is sufficient to establish causation, even if they were not the only or main cause.

Legal Causation

To be a cause in law, a defendant's conduct must be:
- Substantial: making a significant contribution to the result.
- Blameworthy: having some degree of fault that contributed to the result.
- Operative: being a significant cause of the result, with an unbroken chain of causation between the cause and result.

Blameworthy Conduct

R v Dalloway: The defendant was not guilty of gross negligence manslaughter, despite being negligent and the factual cause of death, as their blameworthy conduct was not the cause of death.

Operative Conduct

The defendant's conduct must be operative when the result occurred, and the chain of causation between the cause and result must not be broken.
Interventions between the defendant's conduct and the result can break the chain of causation, including:
- Interventions from the defendant.
- Interventions from natural events (questions of foreseeability).
- Interventions from the victim.
- Interventions from third parties.

Novus Actus Interveniens

A new intervening act can break the chain of causation, such as an act of God that is unforeseen by the defendant and a reasonable person.
Examples: A natural event like the tide coming in and the victim drowning, or the victim being struck by lightning.

Interventions from the Victim

R v Roberts: Foreseeable events, such as the victim jumping out of a car to escape the defendant, will not break the chain of causation.

Studying That Suits You

Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.