1. Causation
But it wasn‟t just me!
So, you‟ve done an act (or failed to
act)…
But V does something to make the
harm worse…
Or a third party does something to
make the harm worse…
Or the medical staff make a
mistake which makes the harm
worse…
Are you still liable?

2. A conundrum…
Louis pushes Dave off the
Empire State Building. Unknown
to him, Reginald is firing his gun
out of the window of a room on
the 43rd floor. As Dave falls past
Reginald‟s window, one of the
bullets hits him, killing him
instantly. Dave hits the floor.
Who is legally
responsible for his
death?

3. So what is causation?
This is the last legal step that is taken to establish D‟s legal
responsibility for the result (normally a death)
Factual Causation Legal Causation
R v White 1910 Thabo Meli
„but for‟ More than Minimal
Substantive
Operative

4. Got the basic Too easy?
principles? Challenge yourself!
Use your understanding to decide whether
Sam and Nigel are liable for the deaths in the
Most of you should be able to:
scenarios below: support your legal argument through use
of relevant precedent
Some of you might even be able
James has been stabbed forty
to:
times. Sam comes along and Discuss how the legal principles might
pricks the end of his finger with affect the outcome with the following
a drawing pin. James dies variations to the facts:
What if James had been stabbed by
forty people, each inflicting one wound?
Nigel pulls a knife on Bob who How would causation affect their
runs down the pavement and hits liability?
Gladys. Gladys falls into the
road and is hit by a car and dies What if the car that hit Gladys was
speeding down a one way street the
wrong way?

5. What else can affect
the chain of causation?
On your desk are 8 cases...
... all the facts, no names.
In each case D argued that the chain was broken
and so he was not liable for the death of V
Which do you think should have a defence and
why?
Can you spot any patterns or deduce any general
rules about when the chain may or may not be
broken?
Key Vocabulary:
Novus actus interveniens
(new intervening act)

6. Causation…
So can you answer the problem?
Louis pushes Dave off the Empire
State Building. Unknown to him,
Reginald is firing his gun out of the
window of a room on the 43rd floor.
As Dave falls past Reginald‟s
window, one of the bullets hits him,
killing him instantly. Dave hits the
floor.
Who is legally responsible for
his death?
Reason, using at least one case in your discussion!

7. Starter:
True or false?
1. Causation helps to prove that the actions or omissions done by D resulted
in the harm to V.
2. It is only the person who inflicts the final blow who can ever be charged
with murder.
3. Blanc was not guilty of murder as there was no evidence that his poison
contributed to his father’s death.
4. There are two types of causation real and legal causation.
5. Something that breaks the chain is known a brand new act.

8. D had lost his daughter and blamed his mother
for having killed her. His mother did not deny her
responsibility and promised to commit suicide.
Eight days later she still had not done it.
The man then came into her hut with a stick and
some rope. He tied the rope to a rafter, made a
noose at the other end, and urged his mother to
"Get up and hang yourself." The woman asked for
something to stand on.
The man put a block of wood under the rope. He
then left the hut and watched his mother get up
on the block of wood, put the noose around her
neck, and kick the block away.
Did the man cause the death of his mother?

9. So what breaks it?
1. Unreasonable Actions of V
Scenario:
V tries to escape D and is injured
in the attempt....
Is D liable for the harm?
R v Roberts 1971
R v Majoram 2000
R v Williams & Davis 1992

10. So what breaks it?
2. Unreasonable Actions of Third Party
Scenario:
D causes V some harm, but someone else also does something to harm V.
Is D liable for the harm?
R v Pagett 1983 R v Rafferty 2007

11. So what breaks it?
3. ‘Palpably Wrong’ Medical Treatment
Scenario:
D causes V some harm, but medical treatment makes
the harm worse, or even kills them!
Is D liable for the harm?
R v Jordan 1956 R v Smith 1959
The doctors actions did D actions were still
break the chain. “operative and substantive”
Important Material Facts: Only break if so
independent of original
wound to be a new chain of
causation.

12. R v Cheshire 1991
1. Did Cheshire succeed in his appeal?
2. Outline the main facts of the case
3. Were the doctors to blame?
4. Were the gunshot wounds the
substantial and operative cause of
death?
5. Why would the courts prefer to
blame Cheshire instead of the
doctors?
6. Why is Cheshire „significantly
different‟ than Jordan?

13. Some other things which might
break it...
Life Support Machines Thin Skull Rule
R v Malcherek & R v Blaue 1975
Steel 1981
R v Holland 1841
R v Dear 1996

14. Plenary:
Have you got the essentials?
Student Task:
All of you will be able to complete the
A3 sheet to demonstrate your
understanding
Some of you will be able to use a
second case to illustrate a case where
the chain has broken

15. Starter:
Can you tell me…
All: The facts or name of each case…
Most: What links them together
Some: Which is the odd one out and why!

16. Applying the Law:
Are the following defendants still liable?
SITUATION DID THEY CAUSE EXPLANATION
THE RESULT?
Bob rejects Vicky’s advances, so she stabs him. He is taken to
hospital where it is discovered he has a rare blood type and the
hospital does not have enough supplies of his blood. He dies
Gary decides to rob a bank. He takes his girlfriend with him as a
getaway driver. The robbery goes wrong and armed police
arrive. He tries to escape and uses his girlfriend as shield. The
police start firing and his girlfriend dies.
Dave is fed up of his wife. He decides to kill her and puts an
overdose of arsenic in her morning tea. She takes a couple of
sips and passes out. Thinking she is dead, Dave drags her out of
the house, whacking her head on the pavement. He dumps her
in the skip at the bottom of the street. She is found and taken to
hospital, where it is discovered that she has extensive brain
damage, and the doctors declare her dead, turning off the life
support machine.
Finally, can you explain how the prosecution prove actus reus?

17. Section C
Section C exam question Guidance
Damian and Juan are arguing and Damian pulls out a knife. Juan runs into the road and knocks over a cyclist,
Brenda, who then falls under a speeding car driven by Manuel. Juan suffers a serious wound to his leg and Answer one out of a
Brenda suffers head injuries. Brenda has an unusually thin skull and dies. Juan goes to hospital, where they
need to operate to correct the broken leg. Juan, who has never been through an operation before, develops choice of two
an allergic reaction to the anesthetic and dies.
questions
Evaluate the accuracy of each of the four statements A, B, C, and D individually, as they apply to the facts in the above
scenario.
Statement A: Damian is not liable for the wound suffered by Juan because he did not hurt Juan in the first
20 marks
place.
• In order to be liable, Damian must have legally and factually caused the harm to Juan, without any
unforeseeable interventions occurring. Definitions are key!
• Damian’s harm does not have to be the only cause, but it must be a more than minimal cause, which it is as
it caused Juan to run away and be hit, and thus need to go to hospital.
•As Damian is both legally and factually responsible, the only thing that could relieve him of liability is a novus
actus interveniens, such as the unreasonable actions of the victim. These only break the chain if they are so ALL AO2 application
daft as to be unforseeable, and Juan running away is not a ‘daft’ decision.
•The other possible break is the palpably wrong medical care. However, as the wound was still substantive
marks (no cases!)
and operative at the time, this is unlikely to break the chain and so the statement is inaccurate.
Statement B: Damian is not liable for the death of Brenda because she has an unusually thin skill. Bullet points
Start with definition
Statement C: Damian is not liable for the death of Brenda because it was unforeseeable that she would be
run over by the speeding car driven by Manuel. Conclude on
statement’s accuracy
Statement D: Damian is not responsible for Juan’s death as he did not give him the anaesthetic. Treat each
statement separately

18. Any questions?

19. Context: First A2 Assessment
For your homework The quote will give
this week, you are you a context for
your answer and key
going to complete words to reference
your first A2
essay,
“In general the criminal law prohibits the
doing of harm but does not impose
This means have a
discussion (or
criminal liability for an omission.
argument) about how However there are justifiable
exceptions to this general principle.”
far the quote is correct
Assess the truth of this statement by
references to situations where a failure to act
may result in criminal liability. [50]
25 AO1 Marks
20 AO2 Marks
…we are going to 5 AO3 Marks
plan it first!
Aim for a minimum of eight cases well explained, evaluated and discussed

20. “In general the criminal law prohibits the doing of harm but does not impose
criminal liability for an omission. However there are justifiable exceptions to
this general principle.”
Assess the truth of this statement by references to situations where a failure to act may
result in criminal liability. [50]
Intro
Define the area of law,
its origins and link to
the AO2 words

21. “In general the criminal law prohibits the doing of harm but does not impose
criminal liability for an omission. However there are justifiable exceptions to
this general principle.”
Assess the truth of this statement by references to situations where a failure to act may
result in criminal liability. [50]
Main Area One AO1 AO2
One area of the law Meaning, and cases or Critical points about this area.
statutes which you are going This may include a link to
e.g. voluntary assumption to use to illustrate and explain further case, or critical
the area of law response to a case you have
e.g. Instan used as AO1
We are going to plan this
together this time, using
our collective brilliance!

22. “In general the criminal law prohibits the doing of harm but does not
impose criminal liability for an omission. However there are justifiable
exceptions to this general principle.”
Assess the truth of this statement by references to situations where a failure to act
may result in criminal liability. [50]
Conclusion:
Answer the rubric!
(this means the
commanding sentence
under the statement)
and explain why you
think that.

23. Homework
Write up your Remember: this is how hard you should
be working at A2!
response to the
essay question we
have planned in
class.
Due:
13D Thursday 28th June 2012
13A Friday 29th June 2012