Causation

Rules of causation

In every crime that cause an unlawful consequences , it is necessary to prove causation or the link between the defendants actions and the the criminal consequences. In order to prove causation there are two rules that are needed to be fulfilled and these are  the factual causation and legal causation.

Factual causation

Factual causation also known as the but for test, requires the proof that but for the defendants actions, the harm would not have occurred. In R v White, the defendant was acquitted due to the fact that but for him putting poison in the victim's drink, she would have died anyway due to heart attack.

Legal causation

Legal causation basically seeks proof that the defendant's actions is the "operating and significant cause of the defendant's harm as established in  R v Cheshire.

However , there are novus actus intervienes or intervening acts that can affect the chain of causation;

Medical treatment -  if the medical treatment of the victim is " palpably wrong" as in R v Jordan then it will break the chain of causation whereas if it is seriously wrong but not "palpably wrong" as in R v Smith then it won't break the chain of causation.

Victim's own conduct - if the victims' conduct is "reasonably foreseeable" as in R v Roberts then it won't break the chain of causation, whereas if it is "not reasonably foreseeable" as in R v Williams then it will break the chain of causation.

Thin skull rule - this basically dictates that if a pre existing weakness or attribute of the victim makes the result of a crime more severe than normal,  the defendant will still be liable as in R v Blaue