In criminal liability causation is separated into two parts; factual and legal causation.
The fatal cause is defined by the combination of both the actus reus and mens rea to comprise the elements of guilt. It is the beginning point for identifying the link of causation and requires the “But For” Test, which was established …show more content…
In the common law of evidence it is where there is the tendency of a given item of evidence to prove or disprove one of the legal elements of the case. Under this part of causation the result must have been caused by a culpable act and there must be no novus actus interveniens- a new intervening act which breaks the causal connection between the wrong committed by the defendant and the subsequent happenings which relieves the defendant from being responsible for the happenings, and the defendant here must take the victim as they find them. This is also known as the thin skull rule, which can be seen in the case of R v Blaue which will be discussed …show more content…
This questions whether her religious beliefs were part of her character or whether her refusal of the suggested treatment was effectively that separate conduct. However, it was proven that her religious beliefs were part of her character.
This second factor is easier seen in MacAngus & Kane v HMA which involves an issue of recklessness . The decision made by the court here was that you cannot consent to be the victim of a crime. In this case, in theory the victims consent could break the chain of causation however in practice content is not acknowledged in criminal conduct.
In the case Patrick Sloven the court here did not find favour towards the accused as it was proven effectively in the first test when addressing the case that but for this assault and the intent to radish the victim would not have attempted to escape. This again clearly proves that here the victim’s actions did not break the chain of causation resulting in the accused found