Standards for the Prosecution Function Flashcards

Conduct caused a prohibited result or consequence.
The prosecution is required to prove the causation as one of the elements of the actus reus of the offence charged

Conduct caused a prohibited result or consequence.
The prosecution is required to prove causation as one of the elements of actus reus of the offence charged
Causation is main issue in cases of homicide, such as where causation is the issue,
The prosecution has to prove conduct of the defendant was both the factual and legal cause of the result.

Pagett [1983]

Whether the conduct caused the result is one for the jury but in determining this issue the jury must apply the legal principles which will have been explained to them by the trial judge.

5.1 Causation and liability
† An intention to cause grievous
bodily harm is sufficient mens rea
for murder.

5.1 Causation and liability
† The actus reus of murder and
manslaughter are the same: it is
the mens rea which differs.

Perhaps you are of the view that
A’s state of mind should be taken into account at this stage. Note, however, that we are
considering the actus reus and not the mens rea. (Causation is an element of the actus reus
of result crimes.)

† Never make assumptions as
to a defendant’s state of mind
or as to anything else for that
matter. If you have not been
given sufficient information
in a question to come to a
determinative conclusion on
guilt or innocence then point
this out.

What type of intervening event, if any, do you think would be sufficient to obliterate the
defendant’s conduct in each of the situations outlined above?

5.2 Factual causation


is determined by reference to the ‘sine qua non’ (or ‘but for’) test.

But for test is precondition of proof of causation but is not sufficient, in itself, to determine the causal link

1)(see White [1910]).
2)Carey [2006] EWCA Crim 17

3)Instan [1893] 1 QB 450
4)The Law Commission working paper on causation produced in 2002 proposals


Nonetheless the defendant’s conduct must actually be demonstrated to have been the sine qua non of the result

Carey [2006] EWCA Crim 17
-Girl
-Affray
-chase and had run 109 yards uphill
-heart disease

-whether her death was attributable to the defendent's conduct
-was it the imputable-or legal cause of her death
-combination of heart condition and
-unnecessary exertion

-held, it would be unwarranted extention of cause and effect
-D convicted of manslaughter
-of her elderly aunt with whom she lived
-became ill
-no attempt to help
-no food or try to obtain medical help

Instan [1893] 1 QB 450
Lord Coleridge CJ

-Slur on administration of death.
-though no actual cause
-but it accelerated the death
-owing to non performance of legal duty

5.2.1 Causation by omission

-D convicted of manslaughter
-of her elderly aunt with whom she lived
-became ill
-no attempt to help
-no food or try to obtain medical help

Lord Coleridge CJ

-Slur on administration of death.
-though no actual cause
-but it accelerated the death
-owing to non performance of legal duty

(1)…[A] defendant causes a result which is an element of an offence when:
(a) he does an act which makes a substantial and operative contribution to its
occurrence
or
(b) he omits to do an act, which he is under a duty to do according to the law
relating to the offence, and the failure to do the act makes substantial and operative
contribution to its occurrence.

-When factual cause is proved
-It must also be proved that the defendant's conduct was the legal cause

5.3 Legal causation

Doctor is not to determine legal responsibility of death

-Jordan [1956] 40 CAR 152 criticized because herein it was the medical doctor who determined the cause of death.
-overruled in
-Malcherek [1981] 1WLR at 696D
overruled Jordan and described it as -'very exceptional'
-overruled in
-Smith [1959] 2 QB 35 that described it
-"very particular case depending upon its exact facts'.
Dalloway (1847) 2 Cox 273
-the result must be attributable to the culpable act
-
Blaue [1975] 1 WLR 1411
The victim must be taken as he finds him

-Malcherek [1981] 1WLR at 696D
overruled Jordan and described it as -'very exceptional'
-overruled in