Legal Causation in Criminal Law

In my last blog post, we looked at causation in criminal law, focusing on factual causation and how this is shown. In this week’s blog post, we are still looking at causation, but turning our attention to legal causation. As mentioned last time, causation is a necessary part of establishing actus reus and requires that it was the defendant’s act or omission that caused the harm to their victim. Factual causation is the first test applied and uses the “but for” test, i.e., but for the defendant’s actions, would the harm have occurred? Legal causation is also tested for and asks whether the harm was the result of a culpable act. We will now look at legal causation in more detail.

Result of the Culpable Act

There are four separate things to consider with legal causation. Firstly, harm must occur as a result of the culpable act, not another factor. For example, in the case R vs Dalloway (1847) 2 Cox 273, a child was killed after being hit by a horse and cart. The driver of the cart was not holding the reins (the culpable act) at the moment of the crash. He was tried with gross negligence manslaughter due to this. However, it was decided by the court that the crash was unavoidable anyway and would not have been prevented had the driver been holding the reins. Therefore, the culpable act had not caused the crash and the driver was found not guilty of gross negligence manslaughter.

More than Minimal Cause

The second thing to consider with regard to legal causation is whether the defendant’s act or omission was more than a minimal cause of the harm that resulted. However, it does not have to be the sole cause of the accident, as was seen in the case R vs Benge (1865) 4 F. And F. 504. In this case, the defendant was a foreman in charge of lifting, repairing, and laying train rails. He failed to check the schedule and the tracks were not replaced when the train arrived. The driver was not paying attention and didn’t brake in time to prevent derailing, causing many deaths. Although the driver was also negligent, the defendant’s actions were a more than minimal cause of the accident, so there was still causation.

Novus Actus Interveniens

Novus actus interveniens means a new intervening act and states that there must not be a new act that breaks the chain of causation. There are three different ways that this can happen: the act of a third party, the act of the victim, or medical intervention. We will now look at each of these ways in turn. Firstly, the act of a third party will usually break the chain of causation as the defendant did not directly cause it and could not have predicted it. However, if the act of a third party is foreseeable the chain of causation remains intact. In the case R vs Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279, the defendant used a woman as a human shield and she was shot by the police. Although this was the act of a third party, it was foreseeable, so the defendant was still found guilty of manslaughter.

The chain of causation can also be broken by the act of the victim, but will not be if their actions are foreseeable, as in R vs Roberts [1971] EWCA Crim 4. Here, the defendant gave a woman a lift in his car, but stopped the car in a remote location and started to make sexual advances. When she refused, he drove off and continued to make sexual advances while driving. To escape this, the woman jumped out of the moving car, getting injured in the process. It was decided by the court that although her injuries were caused by her jumping from a moving vehicle, her escaping in this way was foreseeable so the chain of causation was still intact.

Finally, the chain of causation can be broken by medical intervention, although the courts have been inconsistent in applying this rule. For example, in the case R vs Jordan (1956) 40 Cr App E 152, the defendant stabbed his victim. The victim was taken to the hospital where they received antibiotics that they had an allergic reaction to and an overdose of IV liquids. They died of pneumonia 8 days after the initial injury. It was decided that the cause of death was incorrect medical treatment rather than the initial injury.

However, in R vs Cheshire [1991] 1 WLR 844, the defendant shot his victim twice. The victim was taken to the hospital where he died from complications of a tracheotomy. In this case, it was decided that the medical intervention was not sufficient to break the chain of causation and the conviction was upheld.

Thin Skull Rule

The thin skull rule states that you must take your victim as you find them. The name comes from the idea that if you hit your victim and they have an unusually thin skull (meaning that they have injuries the average person wouldn’t), you cannot claim this as a defence. This does not just apply to physical factors, as was seen in R vs Blaue [1975] 1 WLR 1411, where the defendant stabbed a woman. She was taken to hospital where she needed a blood transfusion but refused on religious grounds as she was a Jehovah’s Witness. She died as a result of her wounds and the defendant was convicted due to the thin skull rule.

Wrapping Up

As mentioned above, both factual and legal causation must be present for a successful conviction – if the defendant has not caused the negative effects, they cannot be found guilty of the crime. In my next blog post, we will be looking at what assault is in criminal law, so come back in two weeks for that!

Want help proofreading your work? Contact Carmine Proofreading for a friendly, professional service from a qualified proofreader.

Email: CarmineProofreading@gmail.com

Twitter: https://twitter.com/CarmineProofed