1 / 16

Actus reus – legal causation

Actus reus – legal causation. Learning Objectives: To explain legal causation. Starter – complete the left hand side of the diagram writing in what you currently know about legal causation. Learning Objectives: To explain legal causation.

marshall-best
Download Presentation

Actus reus – legal causation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Actusreus – legal causation Learning Objectives: To explain legal causation Starter – complete the left hand side ofthe diagram writing in what you currentlyknow about legal causation

  2. Learning Objectives: To explain legal causation Describe what is meant by the term “legal causation”. Explain how the above are applied in deciding whether there is criminal liability. Apply the principles of “legal causation” to case law. Key words: actusreus; mensrea; factual causation; but for test;legal causation; chain of causation

  3. Learning Objectives: To explain legal causation Homework Ratio decidendi and obiter in the case of R v Pagett. Key words: actusreus; mensrea; factual causation; but for test;legal causation; chain of causation Key words:

  4. Learning Objectives: To explain legal causation Legal causation Factual causation on its own will suffice to establish causation. However, in some circumstances it will also be necessary to consider legal causation. Under legal causation the result must be caused by a culpable act, there is no requirement that the act of the defendant was the only cause, there must be no novusactusinterveniens and the defendant must take his victim as he finds him (thin skull rule). Key words: actusreus; mensrea; factual causation; but for test;legal causation; chain of causation Key words:

  5. Learning Objectives: To explain legal causation Legal causation Legal causation requires that the harm must result from a culpable act R v Dalloway (1847) 2 Cox 273  However, this does not apply where the offence is one of strict liability: R v Williams [2011] 1 WLR 588    Key words: actusreus; mensrea; factual causation; but for test;legal causation; chain of causation Key words:

  6. Learning Objectives: To explain legal causation Legal causation The defendant's action need not be the sole cause of the resulting harm, but it must be more than minimal: R v Kimsey[1996] Crim LR 35 “more than a slight or trifling link” Key words: actusreus; mensrea; factual causation; but for test;legal causation; chain of causation Key words:

  7. Learning Objectives: To explain legal causation Legal causation There must be no novusactusinterveniens. Anovusactusinterveniens is a new intervening act which breaks the chain of causation. This can be by: an act of a third party The victim’s own act A natural, but unpredictable event To break the chain of causation, so that the defendant is not responsible for the consequence, the intervening act must be sufficiently independent of the defendant’s conduct and must be sufficiently serious. Key words: actusreus; mensrea; factual causation; but for test;legal causation; chain of causation Key words:

  8. Learning Objectives: To explain legal causation Legal causation Novus actusinteveniens Act of a third party The act of a third party will generally break the chain of causation unless the action was foreseeable: R v Pagett(1983) 76 Cr App R 279 Key words: actusreus; mensrea; factual causation; but for test;legal causation; chain of causation Key words:

  9. Learning Objectives: To explain legal causation Legal causation Novus actusinteveniens The act of the victim Where the act is of the victim, the chain of causation will not be broken unless the victim's actions are disproportionate or unreasonable in the circumstances: R v Roberts [1971] EWCA Crim 4  R v Marjoram[2000] Crim LR 372 R v Dear [1996] Crim LR 595 R v Williams and Davis [1992] 2 All ER 183 Key words: actusreus; mensrea; factual causation; but for test;legal causation; chain of causation Key words:

  10. Learning Objectives: To explain legal causation Legal causation Novus actusinteveniens Medical intervention Where medical intervention contributes to death, the courts have been inconsistent in their approach. R v Jordan (1956) 40 Cr. App. E. 152   R v Smith [1959] 2 QB 35  R v Cheshire [1991] 1 WLR 844 R v Malcherek (1981) 73 Cr App R 173 Key words: actusreus; mensrea; factual causation; but for test;legal causation; chain of causation Key words:

  11. Learning Objectives: To explain legal causation Legal causation Novus actusinteveniens Thin skull rule (egg shell skull rule) Under the thin skull rule, the defendant must take his victim as he finds him. This means if he has a particularly vulnerable victim he is fully liable for the consequences to them even if an ordinary person would not have suffered such severe consequences. For example if D commits a minor assault on V who has a heart condition and V suffers a heart attack and dies. D is liable for the death of V even though such an attack would result in no physical harm to some one without a heart condition. This rule applies irrespective of whether the defendant was aware of the condition. R v Hayward (1908) 21 Cox 692 The thin skull rule also applies where the victim has refused medical treatment which would have saved them: R v Holland (1841) 2 Mood. & R. 351 R v Blaue[1975] 1 WLR 1411  Key words: actusreus; mensrea; factual causation; but for test;legal causation; chain of causation Key words:

  12. Learning Objectives: To explain legal causation Research task Using www.stbrn.ac.uk; www.bailii.org; www.parliament.uk/judicial_work/ (You could also try the new library in Birmingham) Research how the following principles are demonstrated by the associated cases. You will be expected to be able to explain and discuss these at our next lesson. Key words: actusreus; mensrea; factual causation; but for test;legal causation; chain of causation Key words:

  13. Learning Objectives: To explain legal causation Research task • de minimis – Kimsey • V’s own actions – Roberts; Williams & Davies; Dear etc, • Medical negligence – Jordan; Smith; Cheshire • ‘Thin skull’ – Holland; Blaue Key words: actusreus; mensrea; factual causation; but for test;legal causation; chain of causation Key words:

  14. Learning Objectives: To explain legal causation Homework Complete your research and prepare to discuss the principles and cases for next time Key words: actusreus; mensrea; factual causation; but for test;legal causation; chain of causation Key words:

  15. Learning Objectives: To explain legal causation Plenary Complete the right hand side of the diagram and show how you moved from the left to the right hand side. Key words: actusreus; mensrea; factual causation; but for test;legal causation; chain of causation Key words:

  16. Linking activities Start of the lesson What I already know End of the lesson What I have learned

More Related