Result crimes and causation
Result crimes:
Crimes where AR requires a result or consequence.
Prosecution has to establish link of ‘chain of causation’ between d’s conduct and
result
Rules of causation are crucial.
Must prove:
1. FACTUAL CAUSATION
2. LEGAL CAUSATION
Must both be proved to be guilty.
Factual causation
But for test- R v White [1910] 2LB 124
But for d’s conduct, would the result still have occurred as and when it did?
Legal causation:
1. D’s conduct must be a more than minimal cause (de minimis principle)
2. Must be no breaks in chain of causation from later events or behaviour
De minimis principle
Operating and substantial cause- smith [1959]
Contributed significantly to the result- Pagett [1983]
Significant contribution, more than negligible- Cheshire [1991]
More than minimal- kimsey [1996]
No chains in break of causation
D’s act doesn’t need to be sole cause. ‘accused’s act need not be sole cause or even
main cause…’- Pagett [1983]
Thin skull/ eggshell rule. Must take victim as you find them- Blaue
Applies to pre-existing physical or psychological conditions- Hayward [1908]
Extended to cover religious beliefs, d must take whole man not just physical man-
Blaue [1975]
New intervening acts or events might break chain.
Can break if result of ‘free, deliberate and informed intervention of a third party or
one that isn’t foreseeable or’
An abnormal act or event
Victim conduct
(Escaping). Chain remains intact if v’s response is reasonable foreseeable. Would
break if v did something that was seen as silly and not reasonably foreseen- Roberts
[1971]
(neglect or self harm). Chain breaks where v made truly voluntary choice. V’s
response to extreme circumstances created by d’s unlawful act. Holland [1841], Dear
[1996], Wallace [2018]
(drug administration) free will, d cant be responsible for v acting in certain way-
Kennedy no.2 [2008]
Result crimes:
Crimes where AR requires a result or consequence.
Prosecution has to establish link of ‘chain of causation’ between d’s conduct and
result
Rules of causation are crucial.
Must prove:
1. FACTUAL CAUSATION
2. LEGAL CAUSATION
Must both be proved to be guilty.
Factual causation
But for test- R v White [1910] 2LB 124
But for d’s conduct, would the result still have occurred as and when it did?
Legal causation:
1. D’s conduct must be a more than minimal cause (de minimis principle)
2. Must be no breaks in chain of causation from later events or behaviour
De minimis principle
Operating and substantial cause- smith [1959]
Contributed significantly to the result- Pagett [1983]
Significant contribution, more than negligible- Cheshire [1991]
More than minimal- kimsey [1996]
No chains in break of causation
D’s act doesn’t need to be sole cause. ‘accused’s act need not be sole cause or even
main cause…’- Pagett [1983]
Thin skull/ eggshell rule. Must take victim as you find them- Blaue
Applies to pre-existing physical or psychological conditions- Hayward [1908]
Extended to cover religious beliefs, d must take whole man not just physical man-
Blaue [1975]
New intervening acts or events might break chain.
Can break if result of ‘free, deliberate and informed intervention of a third party or
one that isn’t foreseeable or’
An abnormal act or event
Victim conduct
(Escaping). Chain remains intact if v’s response is reasonable foreseeable. Would
break if v did something that was seen as silly and not reasonably foreseen- Roberts
[1971]
(neglect or self harm). Chain breaks where v made truly voluntary choice. V’s
response to extreme circumstances created by d’s unlawful act. Holland [1841], Dear
[1996], Wallace [2018]
(drug administration) free will, d cant be responsible for v acting in certain way-
Kennedy no.2 [2008]
