1. Actus Reus - Causation
Sheet 2 – 19/6/09
Starter
Thinking back to last week there are 6 ways in which an omission leads to actus
reus and can be convictable. You must match the statute or description to the
duty.
A statutory duty Gibbins and Proctor (1918)
The father of a 7 yr old girl lived with a partner.
The father had several children from an earlier
marriage. He and the partner kept the girl
separate from the fathers other children and
deliberately starved her to death. They were both
convicted of murder.
A contractual duty Stone and Dobinson (1977)
Stones elder sister , Fanny came to live with the
defendants. Fanny was eccentric and often stayed
in her room for several days. She also failed to
eat. She eventually became bed ridden and
incapable of caring for herself. On at least one
occasion Dobinson helped to wash Fanny and also
occasionally prepared her food for her. Fanny
died from malnutrition. Both defendants were
found guilty of her manslaughter.
A duty because of a Miller (1983)
relationship D was living in a squat. He fell asleep while smoking
a cigarette. He awoke to find his mattress on fire.
He did not attempt to put it out or to summon help
but went into another room and went back to
sleep/ the house caught fire, he was convicted of
arson.
A duty which has been Under s 170 Road Traffic Act 1988 failing to
undertaken voluntarily stop at a road accident is a criminal offence.
A duty through one’s official Pittwood (1902)
position A railway crossing keeper omitted to shut the
gates, so that a person crossing the line was
struck and killed by a train. The keeper was guilty
of manslaughter. A more modern example would be
of a lifeguard at a beach who leaves his post
unattended. His failure to do his duty could make
him guilty of an offence if a swimmer were injured
A duty which arises because R v Dytham (1979)
the defendant set in motion of A police officer was prosecuted for failing to
chain of events. intervene to quell a disturbance in which a man was
beaten to death outside a night-club.

2. Causation
The prosecution must prove the injury/death was caused by the defendant’s act.
Their act must be both a ‘factual’ and legal’cause of death.
Where a consequence must be proved, prosecution must show that the defendants
conduct was:-
1. the factual cause of that consequence and
2. the legal cause of that consequence and
3. there was no intervening act which broke the chain of causation
Factual Cause
The defendant can only be found guilty if the consequence would not have
happened ‘but for’ the defendants conduct. This can be seen in the case of Pagett
(1983).
Pagett was guilty because the girl would
not have died ‘but for’ him using her as a
shield in the shoot-out. The opposite
situation was seen in the case of White
1910, where the defendant put cyanide in
his mothers drink. She died before she
drank it and therefore White was found
not guilty of murder but guilty of
attempted murder.
Legal Cause
There may be more than one act contributing to the consequence. Some of these
acts may be carried out by other people than the defendant. The defendant can be
found guilty if his conduct was more than a ‘minimal’ cause of the consequence.
There may be more than one person
whose act contributed to the death.
The defendant can be guilty even
though his conduct was not the only
cause of the death. In Kimsey both
drivers were driving at high speed, but
the one driver could be found guilty.

3. The thin skull rule
The defendant must take the victim as he finds
him. In other words if the victim has something
unusual about him which makes the injury more
serious then the defendant is liable for the more
serious injury. So if the victim has an unusually
thin skull which means that the blow to his head
gives him a serious injury, then the defendant is
liable for the injury. Even though the blow may
have only caused bruising to a person with a normal
skull, the defendant will be found guilty. An
example of this case is Blaue (1975)
Intervening acts
There must be a direct link from the defendant’s conduct to the consequence. This
is known as the Chain of Causation. Sometimes something happens after the
defendants act or omission and if this is sufficiently separate from the
defendant’s conduct it may break chain of causation.
Chain of Causation can be broken by
 An act of a third party
 Victims own act or
 a natural but unpredictable event
An example would be where the defendant has stabbed the victim who needs to be
taken to hospital; the ambulance carrying the victim is involved in an accident and
crashed causing fatal head injuries to the victim. Under the ‘but for’ test it could
be argued that the victim would not have been in the ambulance but for the
defendants act in stabbing him. However, the accident is such a major intervening
act that the defendant would not be liable for the death of the victim.
The defendant will then not be responsible. The intervening act must be
sufficiently independent of the defendants conduct and sufficient serious.
Where the defendants conduct causes a foreseeable action by a third party then
the defendant is likely to have caused the consequence. This was seen in Pagett
(1983) where his girlfriend was shot when he held her as a shield against police
bullets.

4. Activity
Complete the task opposite regarding
causation
Medical treatment
Medical treatment is unlikely to break the chain of causation unless it is so
independent of the defendants acts and in itself so potent in causing death that
the defendant’s acts are insignificant. The following three cases show this:
Life Support machines

5. Switching off a life support machine by a doctor when it has been decided that the
victim is brain dead does not break the chain of causation, and therefore the
defendant should be convicted. This is seen in the case of Malcherek (1981)
The Rules of Causation
The flowchart bellows explains the basic rules of causation.
Task sheet
Factual causation

6. a. The ‘but for test.’ The defendant can only be guilty if the consequence would not
have happened ‘but for’ the defendant’s conduct.
White (1910)
b. The de minimis rule. The defendants conduct must be more than trivial and more
than a minimal cause of the consequence.
Example:
Legal causation
Even if factual causation is established, the judge must direct the jury as to
whether the defendant’s acts are sufficient to amount in law to a cause of the
victim’s death. It must be proven in AT LEAST ONE of the following three ways.
a. The original injury was the operative and significant cause of the consequence.
The prosecution must prove that at the time of the incident the original act done
by the defendant was still the ‘operative and substantial’ cause of whatever
happened.
R v Smith
Rv Cheshire

7. R v Jordan
DISCUSSION POINT: what do these cases tell us about medical treatment and
causation?
The Intervening Act was reasonably foreseeable.
An intervening act which is reasonably foreseeable will not break the chain of
causation. Example:
R v Pagett
The thin-skull test
The victim must take the victim as he finds him. If the defendant hits a person
over the head with the kind of blow which would not usually kill, but the victim has
an unusually thin skull which makes the blow fatal, the defendant will be liable for
murder.
R v Blaue
If the prosecution fail to prove both factual and legal causation say for murder,
the defendant will escape liability; however he may be charged with a lesser
offence, say a non-fatal offence against the person.