What is meant by 'causation' in criminal law?
- Legal causation requires that the harm must result from a culpable act: R v Dalloway (1847) 2 Cox 273 Case summary.
- The defendant's action need not be the sole cause of the resulting harm, but it must be more than minimal:
- There must be no novus actus interveniens.
- Thin skull rule (egg shell skull rule)
What are the 10 theories of crime causation?
What are the theories of crime in criminology?
- Biological Theories of Crime.
- Criminal Justice Theories.
- Cultural Transmission Theory.
- Deterrence and Rational Choice Theory.
- Labeling Theory and Symbolic Interaction Theory.
- Psychological Theories of Crime.
- Routine Activities Theory.
- Self-Control Theory.
What are some examples of causation in the law?
- The taking of another's property
- Without the consent of the owner
- With the intent to deprive the owner of the property
What does causation mean in law terms?
Causation is a term used to refer to the relationship between a person’s actions and the result of those actions. In a legal sense, causation is used to connect the dots between a person’s actions, such as driving under the influence, and the result, such as an accident causing serious injuries.
What is an example of causation in criminal law?
Although Betty has committed a crime in attempting to kill her husband, she did not actually cause his death. Oscar died when he himself became angry and had a heart attack. In this example of causation, the prosecutor would not be able to prove factual causation between the poison and the heart attack.
What do we mean by causation?
Causation, or causality, is the capacity of one variable to influence another. The first variable may bring the second into existence or may cause the incidence of the second variable to fluctuate.
How do you prove causation in criminal law?
causeFactual cause is often established using the but-for-test. This test evaluates whether or not the tort would have occurred without the actions or omissions of the defendant. ... Proximate causation refers to a cause that is legally sufficient to find the defendant liable.
What are the two forms of causation in criminal law?
There are two types of causation in the law: cause-in-fact, and proximate (or legal) cause. Cause-in-fact is determined by the "but for" test: But for the action, the result would not have happened. (For example, but for running the red light, the collision would not have occurred.)
What is the theory of causation?
The basic idea is that, although correlation or statistical dependence cannot determine the causal relationship between two variables, it can, under plausible assumptions, determine some causal relationships when three or more variables are considered.
What is an example of causation?
The essence of causation is about understanding cause and effect. It's things like: Rain clouds cause rain. Exercise causes muscle growth.
What is the causation of a crime?
Causation: Which means the concurrence of the actus reus and mens rea must have factually and legally caused the harm.
What are the rules of causation?
The basic rules of causation include: The breach of contract must be an effective or dominant cause of the damage which stemmed from the breach of the legal duty. It isn't necessary to show that a breach was the sole cause of the damage, so long as it was an effective cause of the damage alleged.
What are the four components of crime causation?
Under U.S. law, four main elements of a crime exist:Mental State (Mens Rea) Mens rea is Latin for “guilty mind.” The legal theory of mens rea refers to criminal intent. ... Conduct (Actus Reus) ... Concurrence. ... Causation. ... Contact Knutson+Casey for a Free Consultation.
What is simple causation?
an instance of causation in which a single event is caused by a single identifiable antecedent, without multiple causes or other intervening processes.
What is causation in sentence?
the act of causing something to happen. 1. The gene is only part of the causation of illness. 2. In order to break the chain of causation the third party act must be independent of the breach of duty.
What is the relationship between the defendant's actions and the harm suffered by the alleged victim?
In criminal law, causation essentially describes a ‘cause and effect ’ relationship between the defendant’s actions and the harm suffered by the alleged victim.
Who decides whether a defendant's conduct significantly or substantially brought about the deceased's death?
In criminal cases, the question of whether the defendant’s conduct ‘substantially or significantly’ brought about the deceased’s death is left to the jury.
Why can't a person escape liability for a violent act?
The court also held that those who commit violent acts on others must take their victims as they find them, and cannot escape liability simply because of the deceased’s religious beliefs.
Why are murder cases important?
Homicide cases are often useful to illustrate the law relating to causation.
Is causation always clear cut?
Issues of causation are not always clear-cut and can be a point of contention in criminal matters.
Can the chain of causation be broken?
These cases give rise to the principle that the chain of causation can only be broken by a new intervening act.
Is it easy to break the causation chain?
It is not always easy to establish a break in the causation chain, and being able to identify problems with the prosecution case in relation to causation often requires the expertise and experience of a leading criminal defence lawyer.
What is causation in law?
May 1, 2016 by: Content Team. Causation is a term used to refer to the relationship between a person’s actions and the result of those actions. In a legal sense, causation is used to connect the dots between a person’s actions, such as driving under the influence, and the result, such as an accident causing serious injuries.
What is the causation requirement in a personal injury lawsuit?
The causation requirement of the personal injury lawsuit made it necessary for the Plaintiffs to prove, not only that there was a certain level of toxic mold detected in the building, but that there was a definite link between that level of mold and the illnesses experienced by the tenants.
What is the point of a wrongful act?
The point here is to hold the individual who committed a wrongful act responsible, forcing him to pay for the damages or harm his actions caused. By the same token, simply proving that the accuser, or “plaintiff,” was harmed is insufficient, as he must show the court that a wrongful act committed by the defendant actually caused that harm. ...
What is proximate cause?
In this, the law intervenes where the effects of a defendant’s action come to rest in a safe position, or in such a manner that it appears there is no longer a danger to others. Should some harm occur later from that action, the defendant may not be held liable for damages. This is known as “ proximate cause .”.
What is a civil lawsuit?
Civil Lawsuit – A lawsuit brought about in court when one person claims to have suffered a loss due to the actions of another person. Defendant – A party against whom a lawsuit has been filed in civil court, or who has been accused of, or charged with, a crime or offense.
What is a plaintiff in a lawsuit?
Plaintiff – A person who brings a legal action against another person or entity, such as in a civil lawsuit, or criminal proceedings.
What is the second element of causality?
Factual causation is the second element of causation discussed above. It has to do with whether the defendant’s actions were the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries or damages. The courts use a “but-for” test to determine the answer to this question. Often, there are many factors at work in any given situation, any one of which may have been the cause of the damages, so the court must ask, “But for the defendant’s actions, would the harm have occurred?”
When does the chain of causality break?
The break of the chain of causation by a third party is only when the defendant’s actions are non-operable. So if the defendant’s act was operating and substantial on the cause of the victim’s harm, the chain of causation is not broken. In R v. Pagett, the defendant used his girlfriend as a human shield against police while shooting at the police. In return fire, the girlfriend was shot dead by the police. The argument of the defendant that the actions of the police caused the death and not his actions were rejected by the court. The police shots did not break the chain of causation. The court held that the defendant’s act was foreseeable and therefore did not break the chain of causation.
What happens if the second cause overcomes the original cause?
So, it can be said that if the second cause overcomes the original cause, then the harm does not flow from the act of accused. In Contrast, the wounds in Jordan’s case were largely healed and so the medical treatment was the sole cause of the victim’s death. Jordan can carve out an exception to explanation 2 of Section 299 of IPC if the medical treatment is so palpably wrong which broke the chain, then explanation 2 of section 299 will not apply.
How to prove a defendant is liable for an offence?
To make the defendant liable for an offence, the Prosecution has to prove that the defendant’s actions caused the harm. In other words, it has to be established that the accused conduct was the “causation factor” in resulting harm. In Conduct based crime, causation is not a relevant factor. However, in Result based crimes, causation is relevant to be proved. Broadly, causation can be divided into two categories that are “factual causation” and “legal causation.”
Is the isolation of a legal cause from amongst a possible multitude of factual causes subjective?
It is more of an inquiry made by a lawman rather than a layman. The isolation of a legal cause from amongst a possible multitude of factual causes is a process involving subjective common sense rather than objectively measurable criteria. However, while attempting to assign criminal liability in this manner, one must seek some form of abnormality or culpable behavior.
What is Causation in criminal law?
Criminal law – Causation. Where the actus reus of a crime includes specific consequences e. g. the crime of Murder – the consequence being death, it must be shown that the Defendant caused the victim’s death (although the defendant’s act need not be the sole or the main cause of death). A common approach of the courts has been to assert ...
What is the law on causation?
The cornerstone of the law on causation is that the prosecution must show that the defendant’s act was the substantial and operating cause of the harm. The term ‘substantial’ makes it clear that the defendant’s act need not be the sole cause but the act must be more than just a de minimis or a slight contribution to the result.
What caused the death of the defendant in R v Dyson?
The question for decision was what caused the death and the answer was the stab wound. Also see: R v. Dyson [1908] 2 KB 454 D struck P who was suffering from meningitis and died, and it was immaterial that the blows would not have been caused death but for the meningitis; it was enough that the death would not have been caused by the meningitis at the time when it occurred but for the blows.
Is D liable for manslaughter?
D was liable for manslaughter. Where however the intervening act is not foreseeable, the Defendant may be exempted from liability. For example as noted by Peter Seago in his book Criminal Law, 3rd Edition: “If the accused were to render X unconscious and then leave him lying across a busy railway track, A would be liable for X’s resulting death at the wheels of the express train. If on the other hand the intervening act is totally unforeseeable then the accused will escape liability.
Is a D liable for a wrongful act?
It is important to remember that the D is only liable under the criminal law if a wrongful act of his own causes the injury as if D’s conduct did not contribute to the result, or only contributed to it in a trivial way, then it could not be said that D caused the crime. – See Dalloway (1847) 3 Cox CC 27.
Does human intervention break the chain of causation?
Human intervention, where it consists in a foreseeable act instinctively done for the purposes of self-preservation, or in the execution of a legal duty, does not break the chain of causation.
Can a medical practitioner exonerate a victim from responsibility for the death?
There may be occasions, although they will be rare, when the original injury has ceased to operate as a cause at all, but in the ordinary case if the treatment is given bona fide by competent and careful medical practitioners, then the evidence will not be admissible to show that the treatment would not have been administered in the same way by other medical practitioners, the fact that the victim has died despite or because of medical treatment for the initial injury given by careful and skilled medical practitioners, will not exonerate the original assailant from responsibility for the death.
Causation: What Does It Mean?
Causation, in legal terms, refers to the relationship of cause and effect between one event or action and the result. It is the act or process that produces an effect.
Example of Causation
For example, a homeowner leaves the gate surrounding the backyard pool unlocked. A child opens the gate, falls into the pool, and drowns. The negligent action caused the accident; therefore, causation could be established.
What is the test for legal causation?
The test for legal causation is objective foreseeability (California Criminal Jury Instructions No. 520, 2011). The trier of fact must be convinced that when the defendant acted, a reasonable person could have foreseen or predicted that the end result would occur. In the example given in Section 4 “Example of Factual Cause”, Henry is not the legal cause of Mary’s death because a reasonable person could have neither foreseen nor predicted that a shove would push Mary into a spot where lightning was about to strike.
What is the difference between legal cause and factual cause?
Factual cause means that the defendant starts the chain of events leading to the harm. Legal cause means that the defendant is held criminally responsible for the harm because the harm is a foreseeable result of the defendant’s criminal act.
What is the causation foreseeability requirement?
The Model Penal Code adjusts the legal causation foreseeability requirement depending on whether the defendant acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently. If the defendant’s behavior is reckless or negligent, the legal causation foreseeability requirement is analyzed based on the risk of harm, rather than the purpose of the defendant.
How to distinguish between factual and legal cause?
Distinguish between factual and legal cause. Define intervening superseding cause, and explain the role it plays in the defendant’s criminal liability. Define one and three years and a day rules. As stated previously, causation and harm can also be elements of a criminal offense if the offense requires a bad result.
What is the second part of the analysis that ensures fairness in the application of the causation element?
Legal Causation. It is the second part of the analysis that ensures fairness in the application of the causation element. The defendant must also be the legal or proximate cause of the harm. Proximate means “near,” so the defendant’s conduct must be closely related to the harm it engenders.
What are some examples of factual causes?
Example of Factual Cause. Henry and Mary get into an argument over their child custody agreement. Henry gives Mary a hard shove. Mary staggers backward, is struck by lightning, and dies instantly. In this example, Henry’s act forced Mary to move into the area where the lighting happened to strike.
What is intervening superseding cause?
Intervening Superseding Cause. Another situation where the defendant is the factual but not the legal cause of the requisite harm is when something or someone interrupts the chain of events started by the defendant. This is called an intervening superseding cause.
Introduction
- Causation is a term used to refer to the relationship between a persons actions and the result of those actions. In a legal sense, causation is used to connect the dots between a persons actions, such as driving under the influence, and the result, such as an accident causing serious injuries. Establishing causation is not, in itself, enough to det...
Purpose
- The purpose of the legal system is to ensure fairness and justice in both civil disputes and criminal acts. While in a criminal matter, proving an accused person actually committed the crime for which he is charged is sometimes sufficient in itself, this is not the case in civil lawsuits. The point here is to hold the individual who committed a wrongful act responsible, forcing him to pa…
Content
- This first element deals with whether the accused person was required to act in a particular manner. For example, Layla is disabled, and barely made it outside when her home caught fire. Laylas neighbor Nate called the fire department, then stood with her outside until they arrived. Laylas beloved cat did not make it out of the home, and she is heartbroken. Layla files a civil law…
Issue
- This element deals with whether the specific damages claimed by the plaintiff were caused by the defendants action. For example, Mary fails to look behind her, and backs into the rear bumper of Ronalds truck in a parking lot. There is no question Mary should have been more careful, and that she caused the accident, but she couldnt see any real damage to the bumper when they exchan…
Accidents
- Accidents and unexpected things happen in life. This element deals with whether the accused party actually did something wrong, or wrong enough to be held liable for some type of damages. For example, Ariel and her friends are at the public pool for the afternoon. When Mel cannonballs into the water near Ariel, drenching her and her phone, which was sitting on the lounge chair nex…
Example
- In this example of causation, Mels act did result in the water damage to Ariels phone. However, was there anything wrong with Mels actions? Certainly he might have been more considerate. But, they were all at the public pool, where there is water, splashing, and other activities that could reasonably be expected. By this measurement, Mel did nothing wrong, and it is Ariel who should …
Controversy
- In 2006, tenants of an apartment building in New York filed a lawsuit against the buildings owner, claiming they had suffered illnesses caused by toxic mold in the building. The causation requirement of the personal injury lawsuit made it necessary for the Plaintiffs to prove, not only that there was a certain level of toxic mold detected in the building, but that there was a definite …
Facts
- The Plaintiffs lined up an expert witness to offer an opinion as to the specific symptoms and illnesses caused by toxic mold. The court refused to allow that witness to testify, stating that, at the time, there was no comprehensive medical literature or scientific data firmly linking any specific level of mold to adverse health effects. The court acknowledged that it is common for c…
Factual Causation
- It involves a layman inquiry to be made to find out the cause of death. It is often known as ‘but for’ causation(Causa sine qua non).The question one needs to ask is whether “but for” the accused act, the arm would have occurred. For instance, in R v White, the accused mixed potassium cyanide in his mother’s drink. The mother died and the accused w...
Legal Causation
- It is a more narrow and subjective concept as compared to factual causation. Not every cause infact can be said to be the cause in law. It is more of an inquiry made by a lawman rather than a layman. The isolation of a legal cause from amongst a possible multitude of factual causes is a process involving subjective common sense rather than objectively measurable criteria. Howeve…
Novus Actus Interveniens
- The defendant may avoid liability even if found factually caused the harm in two circumstances known as Novus actus interveniens. First, some third party intervened between the defendant’s act and the result i.e. voluntary intervention by 3rd party. And second, some events occurred between the defendant’s conduct and end result i.e. abnormal intervention or unforeseeable nat…
Voluntary Intervention by Third Party
- The break of the chain of causation by a third party is only when the defendant’s actions are non-operable. So if the defendant’s act was operating and substantial on the cause of the victim’s harm, the chain of causation is not broken. In R v. Pagett, the defendant used his girlfriend as a human shield against police while shooting at the police. In return fire, the girlfriend was shot de…
Victim’S Intervention
- These are the circumstances where the victim itself intervened somehow in the process of causation. For example, inR v. Royale(1991), the conduct of the defendant caused apprehension in the mind of the victim for her safety. So the victim’s jump from the third floor and cause of injury was held not to break the chain of causation as her intervention was not voluntary and co…
Eggshell Skull Rule
- This rule suggests that the defendant must take his victim as they find them. In R v Blaue, the defendant stabbed the woman who was Jehovah’s Witness. As a result of her religious belief, she refused a blood transfusion which would have saved her life. The court held the defendant liable as the religious beliefs of the victim were considered to be a non-voluntary part and so didn’t bre…
Medical Intervention
- In R v. Jordan, the victim who had stab wounds died after eight days of stabbing. By this time his wounds were largely healed. The court held that it was the medical treatment that went wrong after healing that caused the death. So the wounds were not substantial and operating cause of death rather the antibiotics administered to the victim i.e. the medical treatment which was “pal…
References
- (1910) 2 KB 124 (1971) 3 ALL ER 133 (1992) 94 Cr App R 51 (1983) 76 Cr App R 279 (2007) UKHL 38 (1975) Cr App R 271 (1956) 40 Cr App R 152 (1959) 2 QB 35 (1991) 1 WLR 844 H.L.A. Hart and A.M. Honore, Causation in the Law, Law Quarterly Review, 72(1): 58–90, 72(2): 260–281, 72(3): 398–417. LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, an…