Transcription
All right, let's look at the first of what will probably be three videos on causation. And um, I say three videos partly because there are three obviously clear elements, but also it's quite a complex case or quite a complex issue, and one that examiners like to spend an awful lot of time talking about and dealing with.
So what we will do is we'll spend a little bit of time just making sure that you're completely happy and comfortable. The um, what I'm going to look at in the first one, I'm going to sort of slightly introduce some of the key concepts, and then we're going to look at the first test, um, which is known as the but for test. And uh, I've done that by mapping out a few uh diagrams, which means that the canvas is quite large, so we're going to have to move about the canvas.
I'm going to start just with a general rule, a general notion, and that is that in most instances it's not going to be difficult; there will be no issue of causation to consider. The facts will make it completely obvious that the defendant caused the injury to the victim. And I've just used a a sort of brief scenario to show you how simple that is. In this case, the defendant has pulled somebody over, and they've fallen over. The circumstances of that are different. In the first circumstance, it's going to be an unlawful pulling, and that is the defendant has done it with the absolute intention of hurting the person that they've pulled over. That makes it unlawful, of course. The same thing could exist where pulling somebody was lawful, and I've just used the example here of if you pull somebody out of the way to make sure that they're not hit by an oncoming car; that would generally tend to be more lawful.
Now what are the consequences? The consequences of pulling this individual is that they have a broken arm. They have a broken arm in both cases. The fact that in the first case where they have pulled somebody over deliberately, that's more likely to be a crime as the defendant caused the injury. In the second case, they still have a broken arm because the defendant is still caused the injury, but it's more than likely that there was a lawful reason. What we are going to consider is how we determine whether or not the defendant is legally, criminally, liable causing the injury to the victim. And we, it's worth remembering what we've spoken about in terms of result versus conduct crimes. And if you remember, result, also known as consequence crimes, generally tends to mean that that's a crime in which there is a consequence, a result; something happens. And that could be murder; somebody dies. It could be assault; somebody is injured, but there is a consequence, quence, and that's important to understand because it is result or consequence crimes in which we have to show that the defendant caused the result or consequence. And the way in which we do that is we have a two-stage test, and this video is going to look at the first of those stages.
Me, move over here. The first test is known quite simply as the but for test. And the reason, reason that it's known as a but for test is that in order to establish causation, it is necessary to firstly ask if the defendant in fact caused the specified consequence or the effect. One way to ask that question is to say, but for what the defendant did, would the consequences have occurred? And I'm going to finish with an example that shows that precisely: but for what the defendant did, would the consequences have occurred? In Latin, it's known as the sine qua non test, and which means without which not, without which not. And essentially, that means um, it makes it an essential condition, something that is not indispensable, something that is not dispensable. You have to have, you have to have that cause, without which not. Now the easy way, again, to say that is if the result would not have occurred but for what the defendant did, then the prosecution has established causation in fact. That's the but for test. I'll just repeat that again: if the result would not have occurred but for what the defendant did, then the prosecution has established causation in fact. And we refer to that quite obviously as the but for test because we use that phrase, but for what the defendant did.
And our key case in this is R v White; it's a 1910 case, and it's incredibly interesting. The defendant put cyanide into his mother's lemonade with the intention of killing her. Mother, surly looking individual that she is, dies of a heart attack. So she has a heart attack and dies, but she dies before the poison can kill her. The answer to the question, but for what the defendant did, would she have died, is no; she would have died anyway. She was going to die anyway. And that means that the defendant is acquitted of murder because he had not actually caused his mother's death. Now he's still guilty of attempted murder, but I hope you can see that he cannot be found guilty of murder because the heart attack killed her, not the cyanide. And I want you to think of effectively the but for test being nothing more than a filter; it's a first stage, it's a hurdle, it's something for the prosecution to get over, and it sort of just is a very basic test to find out if we can link the defendant to the consequence.
All right, now um, after that, what will happen is we will consider a range of legal causes, and they're the ones that make, make causation make a great deal more sense. But in short, the but for is a filter that just eliminates all unconnected acts or events. And I'm going to ask you to consider the sort of scenarios on the next few slides just to show that in this short video. All right. And not all factual causes make a meaningful contribution to death, nor do factual causes imply blameworthiness, and we're going to see that in a moment. So let's just take a look at this diagram, and we look at the concept of direct or indirect causes. In this, we have a defendant's act that goes through what we would call a chain of causation, and that chain of causation brings about the prohibited consequences. So the defendant's act, through a chain of causation, brings about the prohibited consequence. Right. So the chain of causation is a key term that we use in the law. So let's have a look at the direct cause, or a direct cause of that. If the defendant stabs the victim through the heart, through the chain of causation, the victim dies; straightforward, direct cause, very rarely difficult to prove. However, an indirect cause is also valid. The defendant pushes the victim; the victim falls and hits his head and fractures his skull. The question we have to ask is: the victim still dies; did the defendant cause that death through his actions? And in this case, it's indirect, and that becomes more problematic for us. So the first way in which we do that is we apply the but for filter. But for the defendant pushing the victim, would the victim have fallen over? No. Would he have hit his head? No. Would he have fractured his skull? No. Therefore, you can say factually the victim dies as a result of being pushed over.
Now let's have a look at a simple example. All right. And there's me. So here are the facts of the case. This handsome teacher that you see is told that by his Headmaster that he has to walk to work as part of an economy drive. Now, for those of you that know me, that's not particularly going to make me very happy. I head off to school, um, so was not to claim petrol money and drain the school's coffers. And because I am so miserable because I'm walking to school, I come across Ross, a beggar, and the beggar asks me for £5, like this chap here wants £5. At least he's being honest; he wants it for beer. I refuse to give him the £5, and I tell him, the beggar whose name is Dick, quite obviously cuz that's what I've said in the scenario, and I tell him to go and get a job. Now that makes Dick very angry, and I walk on. Dick, who is now angry, then abuses, after my abuse, he jumps on a passing jogger and causes his death. He gives him a good beating, and he causes his death. So the jogger dies. Oh, pressing the wrong button. So the jogger dies. So essentially, you've got me being told to walk to work, which ends up with a jogger dying. All right. So let's have a look at the but for test. What you have to ask in the but for test is: but for the Headmaster's insistence that I walk to work, would Mark have died? And we have to say the answer to that is no. The Headmaster's decision was the initiating, the starting factor that started this chain of events. In fact, that makes him the factual cause of Mark's death. So the Headmaster is a factual cause of Mark's death. Well, let's look at me. But for my abuse of Dick, would Mark have died? Well, no, of course he wouldn't. My abuse angered Dick and led him to attack the jogger Mark. Thus, me, Mr P, is a factual cause of Mark's death. So that's the Head and I that are factual causes of Mark's death. Now let's have a look at Dick. We could say that but for Dick's attack, would Mark have died? Now I accept that that is now a woman, and that quite obviously is a man, but I couldn't find any other pictures of dead joggers. So but for Dick's attack, would Mark have died? No, of course he wouldn't. Dick's attack leaves Mark with serious injuries from which he dies. So Dick is a factual cause also of Mark's death. Now, of course, in the last, in this scenario, all three parties are a but for cause of death, but not all of us are regarded as equally to blame for Mark's death. So the factual cause merely establishes a preliminary connection between the act and the consequence. What we now need to do is we now need to decide that having passed that test, that we go on to look at a legal cause. We go on to look at whether or not the Head, myself, or Dick are the person that is to blame for Mark's death. All three of us have passed the but for filter, and we now go on to look at the legal test, and we'll do that in the next video.