Causation

So, causation - the act of causing something.
In law, it's a chain.

There's 2 tests you must meet to first establish a chain of causation:

1. FACTUAL CAUSATION - Sine qua non - The 'but for' test - but for D's actions, would it have happened?
If No - they meet the test

White - He was Yes - his mum would still have died - so he got attempted murder instead.

2. LEGAL CAUSATION - The 'de minimus' test. Were D's actions substantive and operative?

Church

Malcherek and Steel - switching off the life support machine - D's actions were still substantive and operative.

Smith - dropped off stretcher

Jordan (confined to facts)

Contemporaenity - the AR and MR, if formed at different times, must cross at some point.

MPC v Fagan - car on policeman's foot, asked to move, switch off engine. D started the act when the car was on the PO's foot. His MR came when he turned off the engine.

Miller - accidentally set fire to matress then left room. AR - setting fire. MR - formed when he left the room and decided not to mitigate the harm done.

Thabo Meli - They beat the guy up - AR - then threw him out the van off a cliff - MR to GBH/death - when they threw him out.

Continuing Act - If the act is a continuing act, D may develop the MR at any point before the conclusion of the act - MPC v Fagan.


AO2 - But, if D didn't foresee any of this, it may be unfair. If, like problem uestion, one person triggers a series of linked events, is it fair to blame them? Some say yes - if they hadn't have committed the original acts, the others wouldn't have followed. Plus there are measures in place to make sure absurdities or unfairness isn't reached.
Others argue no - not fair to prosecute someone for something they didn't foresee.

So yes. The chain may be broken by one of 3 things: This is called a 'novus actus interveniens' - a new intervening act.

AO2 - Not often allowed - very narrow. Difficult to prove.

NIA:

Unreasonable actions of V - Blaue, Roberts, Williams and Davis
Roberts - NO - hitchhiker jumped out of car after he pawed her coat - not an unreasonable action - could have been foreseen that she would try to escape.
Williams & Davis - YES - D jumped out van (thought he was going to be robbed). He jumped out over cliff and died. His actions WERE unreasonable.
Unreasonable actions of 3rd party - Pagett - used girlfriend as human shield

For unreasonable actions, the test is: 'were the actions of the person so daft as to be unforeseeable?'.

Palpably wrong medical treatment - test: 'was it so independent of original wound that it constitutes a new chain of causation?'.

Jordan (confined), Smith.
Cheshire - key case - D was shot and died from a botched tracheotomy operation. It didn't break the chain of causation because D's actions - shooting - were still 'substantive and operative'. Wasn't 'so independent of original wound' - NIA


Other things:

Thin Skull Rule - Mitchell - you take V as you find them.
Blaue - Stabbed, blood transfusion, Jehovah's Witness - No. Died - D still liable.
Haywood - wife, argument, wife died of nervous excitement
Dear - pen knife, stab, V - gangrene, died

AO2 - Carey, Dawson- illustration of how 'Thin Skull Rule' doesn't work. In this case, it was unforeseeable that V would die of a heart condition as she looked healthy. Even she didn't know she had a condition.
How is it fair to prosecute someone if they didn't foresee the outcome?
BUT someone has to be held liable. But for their actions, the outcome wouldn't have come about, therefore they must be responsible.


'Turning off life support'
If it's in the patient's best interests, it can break the chain.
Malcherek & Steel
Bland - feeding tube

So overall, causation seems to be straightforward. There are a series of tests to prove liability AND there are limitations. Surely it's fair?


Cases:
White
Blaue
MPC v Fagan
Thabo Meli
Mitchell
Miller
Church
Malcherek and Steel
Blaue
Roberts
Williams & Davis
Pagett
Blaue
Cheshire
Jordan
Smith
Carey
Haywood
Dear
Bland

Woah ^