Criminal - Seminar 4 - Causation by Claire Turner

Link to Prezi

claire43 — 2022-10-19 08:33:17 UTC

1. Den set out to kill Vin by tampering with the brakes of Vin's motorbike. While riding the bike, Vin was killed in a collision with a car which pulled out from a junction. Misjudging the speed at which Vin was approaching, the car pulled straight onto the road and into his path, giving him no time to brake. There is evidence that the brakes would have failed if full pressure had been applied to the brake lever but that Vin had not attempted to do so.

claire43 — 2022-10-19 08:33:26 UTC

Not guilty - but for (R v White). No attempt to brake but for his tampering the accident would still have happened so no effect.

Legal causation - Kimsey - significant contribution to the injury. Smith - operating and substantial cause? No.

3. Dev throws a brick out of his upstairs bedroom window as he has lost his temper with the builders who have been making a mess whilst renovating his house. The brick hits one of the builders, Viv, and kills him instantly. Unbeknownst to Dev, Viv had a bone condition which made his bones vulnerable to breakage and died from a fractured skull from being hit on the head.

claire43 — 2022-10-19 08:33:41 UTC

But for (White) him throwing brick, Vic would still be alive

Legal - more than de minimis - causal link established. Smith - operating and substantial cause

No breaks in causation - egg shell skull (Blaue)

5. D has taken V hostage. He has a gun which he has fired at armed police who have surrounded his house. D tries to escape, using V as a shield. it is dark outside and visibility is poor. As D leaves an armed police officers fires at him but the bullet strikes V. She dies. D is charged with murder but claims the police killed V - is he correct?

claire43 — 2022-10-19 08:33:48 UTC

6. Delilah and Valentine were young models who shared a flat. Delilah was not being booked for work and was very jealous of the amount of work Valentine was getting. After a particularly disappointing casting, Delilah waited for Valentine to return to the flat and then threw a bottle of cleaning bleach over her face. Valentine’s injuries were catastrophic. She was left severely disfigured and suffering with devastating physical and psychological impacts. Six months after the attack, she committed suicide. The CPS is now considering charging Delilah in connection with the death of Valentine. Advise them.

claire43 — 2022-10-19 08:33:54 UTC

2. D was driving without a license or insurance when a pedestrian stepped out in front of their car and was killed. The pedestrian was to blame for the accident and there was nothing D could have done to avoid it. D was charged under the Road Traffic Act, which provides that a person commits an offence if ‘being unlicensed, uninsured or disqualified, he causes the death of another person by driving a motor vehicle on the road’. Will he be convicted?

claire43 — 2022-10-19 08:35:30 UTC

4. Vic is in an abusive relationship with Dominic. One night, Dominic comes into their bedroom and threatens Vic with violence. She is terrified and jumps out of the window and breaks her arm. She is taken to hospital where the doctor fails to see the complexity of the break. Her arm is not set properly. It fails to heal and Vic dies from the resulting infection.Evidence has established that the doctor had not fully examined Vic as the hospital was busy that evening. Who causes Vic’s death?

claire43 — 2022-10-19 08:36:26 UTC

Dominic's actions initial cause. Vic reaction is foreseeable as people react fearfully in relation to violence. Broken arm direct result of D threat. But for Dom actions would Vic have died - no (R v White)

Causal link - deminimis (Pagett; Kimsey) Smith - was operating and substantial cause of her death.

Break in chain? Dr negligence does not break the chain unless extraordinary (R v Smith; Cheshire - medical negligence is only too frequent to be considered extraordinary - Prosecution's case)

Defence - Jordan - the treatment was 'palpably wrong' . Distinguish Jordan, facts were virtually healed and gave the antibiotic. In the instant case, she hadn't healed, the actions were to treat the existing injury.

~~D - foreseeable cause - set in motion. Dr could partially liable as did not see complexity.~~ - Never consider Dr's liability in a criminal question.

Jumping out of the window - defence will argue that breaks the chain - Roberts - unreasonable or daft. Prosecution - her actions weren't free deliberate and informed (Kennedy No. 2) extreme situation he put her under - actions weren't voluntary (Wallace)

4. Vic has died due to a chain of events- if she was not in an abusive relationship with Dominic she would not have jumped out the window causing her to break her arm and end up in hospitalR v Roberts (1971)- due to victim being assaulted- jumped out the window for protection- guilty for chain of causationFurthermore, the as a professional- the doctor was the last person to examine Vic before she died and failed to follow the correct procedure of checking her arm and this was the cause of her deathSmith (1959) treatment poor in hospital- doctor guilty of death

2022-10-19 08:40:00 UTC

5. R v Pagett 1983- appellant used teen girl standing near him for protection and officer killed the girl

2022-10-19 08:40:50 UTC

6. R v Wallace (2019)- Wallace charged with murder on ex-partner by pouring corrosive substance on him

2022-10-19 08:41:08 UTC

R v Wallace

claire43 — 2022-10-19 08:42:24 UTC

4.

2022-10-19 08:43:35 UTC

Mackie (1973), the escape and the risk of harm/danger is reasonably foreseeable. Roberts [1971], the act must be daft for the act to break the chain of causation.
Cheshire (1991), provides that medical negligence will not break the chain of causation

5.

2022-10-19 08:44:11 UTC

Analogous with Pagett [1983]

2. Guilty of an offence under the Road Traffic Act- He is unlicensed and uninsured and has killed a pedestrian while driving a car- R v Hughes

2022-10-19 08:44:43 UTC

R v Hughes

claire43 — 2025-10-15 10:05:38 UTC