By Manoor Yunus & Bilal Gurjee
• In ‘result crimes’ a causal link must be proved between the defendants actions •
and the consequence.
There are 2 types of causation 1) Factual causation 2) Legal causation Factual causation is where something is a cause of some kind so that ‘but for’ the thing happening the consequence would not occurred.
It must be more than a tiny or trivial cause. In White (1910), where the defendant tried to poison his mother, he was not even a factual cause because his mother died of a heart attack before the poison could take effect To be successful in a claim for a remedy, P needs to prove that the loss for which he/she seeks compensation was caused in fact by the D’s wrongful act
• Causation in fact relates to the factor(s) or conditions which were causally relevant in producing the
• Whether a particular condition is sufficient to be causally relevant depends on whether it was a necessary condition
for the occurrence of the damage
• The necessary condition: causa sine qua non
Blaue, R v (1975) CA
• [Causation - novus actus inteveniens - death occurring from V’s own actions does not break causation – think skull rule]
• D stabbed an 18-year-old woman V and punctured her lung. At the hospital, V was told she would need a blood transfusion to save her life, but refused this as contrary to her religious beliefs. She died next day.
• Held: It has long been the policy of the law that those who use violence on other people must take their victims as they find them. This principle clearly applies to the mental as well as the physical characteristics of the victim, and the courts will rarely make a judgement as to whether the victim's response was reasonable. • Guilty of manslaughter (diminished responsibility)
R v White 
• R v White 
The defendant put some poison in his mother's milk with the intention of killing her. The mother took...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document