actus reus legal causation n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Actus reus – legal causation PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Actus reus – legal causation

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 16

Actus reus – legal causation - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 267 Views
  • Uploaded on

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.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Actus reus – legal causation' - marshall-best


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
actus reus legal causation
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

slide2

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

homework

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:

legal causation

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:

legal causation1

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:

legal causation2

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:

legal causation3

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:

legal causation4

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:

legal causation5

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:

legal causation6

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:

legal causation7

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:

research task

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:

research task1

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:

homework1

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:

plenary

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:

slide16

Linking activities

Start of the lesson

What I already know

End of the lesson

What I have learned