What is - "It must be proved that there is a clear and unbroken link between the defendant's actions and the unlawful event"
Chain Of Causation
Name the two types of Causation the prosecution must use to prove Causation
Intervening Act and Thin Skull Rule
Factual and Legal Causation
What is Factual Causation?
Factual Causation must be proved using the "but for" rule, it must be proved that the unlawful event would not have happened "but for" the defendants actions, (R v White.)
Factual Causation has to be proved that the defendants actions were an operative and substantial and significant cause of the unlawful event.
What is Legal Causation?
Legal Causation is the prosecutions final decision on the chain of causation
Legal Causation additionally has to be proved. This means that the defendants involvement must have been more than minimal. The courts have used two different terms to explain this. The defendant must be the "operative and substantial cause" of the unlawful result (R v Smith) and a "significant contribution " to it (R v Cheshire.)
What is an Intervening Act
An intervening act can be of 4 types
A) An act of a third party
B) Medical Intervention
C) The Victims own act
D) A natural but unpredictable event
With an intervening act there is no legal cause , the intervening act must be serious and sufficiently separate from the defendants actions.
What does medical treatment need to be to break the chain of causation?
What is the Thin Skull rule?
The Thin Skull Rule - "TAKE YOUR VICTIM AS YOU FIND THEM"
If the victim has a special physical or mental characteristic which makes an injury more serious, then the defendant is liable for the more serious injury
People will Thin Skulls are more likely to be seen as guilty