[tp widget="default/tpw_default.php"]

Tag: What is meant by causation in criminal law

what is legal causation in criminal law

what is legal causation in criminal law插图

Cause and effect
In criminal law,causation essentially describes a‘cause and effect’ relationship between the defendant’s actions and the harm suffered by the alleged victim. In order to establish a defendant’s guilt,the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that his or her actions were a ‘substantial and significant cause’ of the harm.

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 propertyWithout the consent of the ownerWith 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 the evidential principle in SFC v Zou Yisha?

The Hong Kong Court of Appeal considered these authorities in SFC v Zou Yisha [ 17] and held that the evidential principle now expressed in Nedrick and Woollin as to a defendant’s intent to bring about a certain result being found from his appreciation of the virtual certainty of his actions bringing about that result, is applicable generally in the common law to all offences of specific intent. [ 18] .

What is the but for test?

The ‘but for’ test was illustrated in the case R v Pagett [ 1] where a question was asked that whether the hostage would not have died but for the defendant’s conduct. The factual causation was established as: If the accused had not fired first, the police officers would not have fired their weapons, and then the hostage would not have died.

What happened in R v Nedrick?

In R v Nedrick, the appellant was convicted of murder after he poured paraffin through the letter box at the house of a woman to whom he had earlier made the threat to “burn her out”.

What is legal causation?

Legal causation requires proof that the defendant’s conduct was sufficiently connected to its occurrence. [ 3] It could be merely established if the defendant’s conduct was an operating and substantial (not trivial) conduct, but not necessarily the only cause of the consequence when there are two or more legal causes of the same consequence.

What is the requirement for factual causation?

Factual causation requires proof that the defendant’s conduct was a necessary condition of the consequence, established by proving that the consequence would not have occurred but for the defendant’s conduct .

What is the meaning of "causation" in criminal law?

What is Meant by ‘Causation’ in Criminal Law? “Causation” in Criminal Law is concerned with whether the defendant’s conduct contributed sufficiently to the prohibited consequence to justify the criminal liability, which would be assessed from two aspects, namely “factual” and “legal” causation. Factual causation requires proof …

What is the primary desire or motive of the defendant?

The primary desire or motive of the defendant may not have been to harm that person, or indeed anyone, because one may intend to achieve a certain result whilst at the same time not desiring it to come about.

How many instances of chain of causation can be broken?

There are generally two accepted instances where the chain of causation can be broken.

How did Whiting die?

It was suggested that Whiting had died after becoming unconscious and drowning.

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.

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.

Where did Whiting slump on his back?

He then left Whiting slumped on his back at the edge of the water.

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 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. …

Why did Layla file a lawsuit against her neighbor?

Layla files a civil lawsuit against her neighbor for not running into her home to save her cat. Layla’s lawsuit fails at this first test, as Nate had no legal responsibility, or “duty to act,” in going into a burning home to save anyone, let alone a cat. 2.

What is the purpose of the legal system?

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 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 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 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.

How is causation established in personal injury cases?

In some personal injury actions, legal causation may be established if the plaintiff can show that the defendant engaged in intentional conduct. This means that the wrongdoer intentionally or purposefully harmed the plaintiff or knew that the conduct in which he or she engaged gave rise to a substantial likelihood that harm would result .

How is actual causation determined?

Actual causation is determined by literal cause and effect. Whether legal causation is established depends on the facts and circumstances of the particular matter in question. In some personal injury actions, legal causation may be established if the plaintiff can show that the defendant engaged in intentional conduct.

What is legal causation?

What. is legal causation? Not every injured plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for the injury he or she sustains. Besides the injury, the plaintiff must also establish, through credible and relevant evidence, that the defendant is legally responsible for his or her injuries.

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.”

What is the rule in R v Blaue?

This rule suggests that the defendant must take his victim as they find them. In R v Blaue, [6] 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 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.

What is the difference between normal and abnormal?

However, the crucial distinction between abnormal and normal conditions is that an individual is only the moral/legal cause of those events in the world that are accompanied by the normal range of attendant conditions. Where an abnormal condition ensues, it becomes the cause in place of the human intervention, which in turn becomes an antecedent condition to the abnormal element. The problem is that the difference between ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal,’ ‘cause’ and ‘condition’, is based on one’s judgment. According to Hart and Honore, the distinction between cause and condition may be drawn in different ways in the same case according to the context. It can change, amongst other things, when our perceptions of what is acceptable and not acceptable, permissible and not permissible, in society’s provision for dealing with particular problems change. Therefore, individual responsibility ultimately relies upon a variable evaluation of what is ‘normal’ in social life and no definitive proposition can be laid down.[10]

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.

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.

How is causation proven?

Causation could be proved either through factual or legal causation. According to the Court of Appeal in Pagett [ 3] and Cheshire [ 4] the issue of factual causation is mainly one for the jury once it has been determined by the courts that there is enough evidence to be left to them. Factual causation can be established through the ‘but for’ test …

What did Thirlaway and James think of Kennedy No2?

Thirlaway and James were of the view that the decision in Kennedy No2 did not attract a great deal of the academic support. [ 23]

What is the case of Kennedy No2?

The case of Kennedy No2 was seen to be the leading case with regards to the causation principles in cases of supply drugs where the dealer supplies drug and after voluntary self injection by the victims, they die.

Why did Cherkassy disagree with Kennedy No2?

Cherkassy disagreed with the decision in Kennedy No2 on the fact that the act of injection was to break the chain in causation because the injection was made possible by the unlawful act of possession and supply of drugs and the victim administering the drug does not mean the defendant didn’t take part in the administration. [ 49]

What happened in 1996?

On 10 September 1996, the appellant visited the room occupied by the victim and his friend, C, who had been drinking together. According to the evidence of C, B told the appellant that he wanted ‘a bit to make him sleep’. The appellant had told the victim to take care that he did not go to sleep permanently.

What does Honore and Hart argue about causal sequence?

Honore and Hart argue that where there is a free, deliberate and informed act or omission of a human being intervening in causal sequence, the initial causal chain is broken. [ 19]

When is factual causation sufficient?

In circumstances where there are no complicating factors, factual causation will be sufficient to establish causation but where there are complicating factors, legal causation will be needed to establish causation.