Scribd
Upload
6 views

Causation in CR

Uploaded by

otenkeakantse95
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
6 views

Causation in CR

Uploaded by

otenkeakantse95
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Causation must be established in full in all result crimes and is divided between factual causation and

legal causation.

Factual Causation

Factual causation is established by applying ‘but for’. This helps to show ‘but for the actions of the
defendant, would the result have occurred’. If the answer to this question is a yes - the result would
have occurred at the time of the event - then the defendant is not liable for the crime in question. If not,
the defendant will be liable and it can be said that their action was the factual cause of the result, event
or crime.

An example of causation would be that murder requires proof that a person has been killed. Factual
cautions can be known as ‘but for’ causation, as it must be well-established that the result of the crime,
(in this case, the murder) would not have happened but for the actions of the accused.

If the factual causation can’t be established then the prosecution will fail. The claimant must prove that
the breach caused the loss.

Legal Causation

With 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, and there is no ‘novus actus interveniens’ meaning ‘new
intervening act’. The result must be caused by a culpable act, the defendant must take the victim as they
found them.

There are several legal principles and tests that are used to determine causation in criminal cases. The
"but for" test is one of the most commonly used tests, which asks whether the harm would have
occurred "but for" the defendant's actions. The "significant contributing factor" test is another common
test, which asks whether the defendant's actions were a significant contributing factor in bringing about
the harm. There are also tests such as the "natural and probable consequences" test, and the "contrast
with the innocent agent" test. These tests are used to help determine whether the defendant's actions
caused the harm in question.

Sure! There are a few challenges and criticisms related to the concept of causation in criminal law. One
common criticism is that the "but for" test can be too broad, as it may find causation even when the
defendant's actions were only a minor contributing factor to the harm. Another criticism is that the
natural and probable consequences test can be too narrow, as it may not find causation in situations
where the defendant's actions were a direct cause of the harm. There is also ongoing debate about the
role of causation in cases of strict liability, where the defendant's state of mind is not a relevant
factor.Yes, there are a number of legal debates related to the natural and probable consequences test.
One debate is whether the test should be limited to situations where the harm is an obvious or
foreseeable consequence of the defendant's actions, or whether it should also apply to situations where
the harm is not obvious or foreseeable. Another debate is whether the test should consider only the
defendant's actions, or whether it should also consider the actions of third parties. There is also debate
about how to apply the test in cases of multiple causes.

You might also like