Causation in Criminal Law - the process of finding out whether the defendant’s act what is the cause of the harm., How is causation decided? - Factual and legal causation with no intervening acts, What is the "but for" test - the test applied to establish factual causation, What cases illustrate the but for test? - R v Pagett (1983) and R v White (1910), What does the but for test mean - It asks the question: but for the Defendant's action, would the Victim have suffered injury, What if but for test is inconclusive? - Legal Causation is considered, What is legal causation? - Legal causation refers to whether the defendant’s act was the operative and substantial cause of the resulting harm, What else is considered for legal causation? - The defendant’s action must also be more than a minimal cause of the consequence to establish legal causation., What case illustrates legal causation? - R v Kimsey (1996), What is the ratio of R v Kimsey? - Defendant's act was described as being “more than a slight or trifling link”, What 3 ways may the chain of causation be broken? - The Victim's own act, the act of a third party or an act of god, Intervening act of the victim which may break chain of causation - R v Roberts (1973), An act of a third party? - R v Jordan (exception to the rule that medical treatment does not usually break chain of causation), Rule for act of a third party? - Actions of third parties will only break the chain of causation where the act was not foreseeable or predictable, Act of God - Tsunami, earthquake, flood etc, Novus Actus Interveniens - Intervening Act, R v Smith (1959) - V dropped twice by medical team but still chain of causation unbroken from original fight injury, R v Macherek - Switching off of life support by Doctors does not break the chain of causation, R v Blaue - Illustrates thin skull rule - you take your victim as you find them,

Causation

ni
I-print
Naka-embed

Leaderboard

Estilo ng visual

Mga pagpipilian

Magpalit ng template

Ibalik ng awtomatikong pag-save: ?