1.4 Causation

Causation is a critical element in criminal law, linking a defendant's actions to the resulting harm. It encompasses both factual and legal causation, requiring proof that the defendant's conduct was the actual cause and a legally sufficient cause of the outcome.

The but-for test and substantial factor test are used to establish factual causation, while proximate cause determines legal responsibility. Factors like foreseeability, intervening causes, and concurrent causes all play roles in assessing criminal liability based on causation.

Factual vs legal causation

• Factual causation refers to the actual cause-and-effect relationship between the defendant's conduct and the resulting harm, establishing that the defendant's actions were a necessary condition for the outcome
• Legal causation goes beyond mere factual causation, considering whether the defendant should be held legally responsible for the consequences of their actions based on factors such as foreseeability and the proximity of the cause to the effect
• Both factual and legal causation must be proven to establish criminal liability, as the law seeks to assign blame only when the defendant's conduct is both the actual cause and a legally sufficient cause of the harm

But-for causation test

• The but-for causation test is a method used to determine factual causation by asking whether the result would have occurred "but for" the defendant's actions
• To apply the test, one must consider a hypothetical scenario in which the defendant's conduct is removed from the chain of events and then assess whether the outcome would still have occurred
• If the removal of the defendant's actions eliminates the resulting harm, then the but-for test is satisfied, and factual causation is established

Exceptions to but-for causation

Top images from around the web for Exceptions to but-for causation

• 

  Rethinking the Use of Statistical Evidence to Prove Causation in Criminal Cases: A Tale of (Im ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Chapter 4: How Public Law Structures Politics – Politics, Power, and Purpose: An Orientation to ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  In Defence of Substantial Sentencing Discretion | Criminal Law Forum View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Rethinking the Use of Statistical Evidence to Prove Causation in Criminal Cases: A Tale of (Im ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Chapter 4: How Public Law Structures Politics – Politics, Power, and Purpose: An Orientation to ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Exceptions to but-for causation

• 

  Rethinking the Use of Statistical Evidence to Prove Causation in Criminal Cases: A Tale of (Im ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Chapter 4: How Public Law Structures Politics – Politics, Power, and Purpose: An Orientation to ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  In Defence of Substantial Sentencing Discretion | Criminal Law Forum View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Rethinking the Use of Statistical Evidence to Prove Causation in Criminal Cases: A Tale of (Im ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Chapter 4: How Public Law Structures Politics – Politics, Power, and Purpose: An Orientation to ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• The but-for test may not always be suitable, particularly in cases involving multiple sufficient causes or concurrent causes
• In situations where two or more causes independently could have produced the same result, the but-for test might incorrectly exonerate defendants whose actions were sufficient to cause the harm
• Another exception arises when the defendant's conduct accelerates an inevitable outcome, such as hastening the death of a terminally ill victim, where the but-for test might suggest a lack of causation despite the defendant's culpable actions

Substantial factor test

• The substantial factor test is an alternative to the but-for test, used primarily when the but-for test fails to adequately address situations with multiple sufficient causes
• Under this test, a defendant's conduct is considered a cause of the result if it was a substantial factor in bringing about the outcome, even if other factors also contributed significantly
• The substantial factor test allows for the assignment of liability when multiple causes concurrently lead to a single result, recognizing that each substantial factor played a material role in causing the harm

Multiple sufficient causes scenario

• A multiple sufficient causes scenario arises when two or more causes, each independently sufficient to bring about the result, occur concurrently
• For example, if two individuals simultaneously deliver lethal doses of poison to a victim, each dose alone would have been sufficient to cause death
• In such cases, the but-for test might incorrectly absolve both defendants, as the removal of either individual's actions would still result in the victim's death due to the other's sufficient cause

Proximate cause requirement

• Proximate cause, also known as legal cause, is a requirement that limits legal responsibility to consequences that are reasonably related to the defendant's actions
• Even if factual causation is established, proximate cause ensures that liability is not extended to unforeseeable or overly remote consequences
• Proximate cause considers factors such as the foreseeability of the harm, the directness of the connection between the conduct and the result, and any intervening causes that may break the causal chain

Foreseeability of harm

• Foreseeability is a key element of proximate cause, assessing whether the defendant could have reasonably anticipated the potential consequences of their actions
• If the resulting harm was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's conduct, proximate cause is more likely to be established
• However, if the harm was highly unusual, improbable, or unforeseeable given the circumstances, the defendant may not be held legally responsible despite factual causation

Intervening causes

• Intervening causes are events that occur between the defendant's conduct and the resulting harm, potentially breaking the causal chain and relieving the defendant of liability
• An intervening cause may be a superseding cause if it is unforeseeable and sufficient to override the defendant's original conduct as the proximate cause of the harm
• However, foreseeable intervening causes or those set in motion by the defendant's actions may not break the causal chain, and the defendant could still be held liable

Concurrent causes

• Concurrent causes refer to situations where multiple factors, each capable of independently causing the harm, act together to produce a single result
• In such cases, each concurrent cause may be considered a proximate cause of the outcome, and the individuals responsible for each cause could be held liable
• Concurrent causes are distinct from multiple sufficient causes, as each concurrent cause need not be sufficient on its own to bring about the result

Liability for concurrent causes

• When concurrent causes contribute to a single harmful outcome, the individuals responsible for each cause may be held jointly and severally liable
• Joint and several liability allows a plaintiff to recover full damages from any one of the liable parties, regardless of their individual degree of fault
• In the context of criminal law, concurrent causes may result in multiple defendants being charged and convicted for their role in bringing about the prohibited result

Omissions as cause

• An omission, or failure to act, can serve as a cause of harm in certain circumstances where the defendant had a legal duty to act
• Liability for an omission arises when the defendant's failure to fulfill a legal duty leads to a harmful consequence that the defendant was obligated to prevent
• To establish causation through an omission, it must be shown that the defendant's action, had it been taken, would have prevented the harm from occurring

Duty to act

• A legal duty to act may be imposed by statute, contract, or special relationships such as those between parents and children or doctors and patients
• In some jurisdictions, a duty to act may also arise when the defendant voluntarily assumes responsibility for another's safety or creates a risk of harm through their own conduct
• Failure to fulfill a legal duty to act can result in criminal liability if the omission is the proximate cause of the resulting harm

Causation in specific crimes

• The principles of causation apply to various criminal offenses, but some crimes have unique causation-related rules or considerations
• Certain offenses, such as felony murder and drug-induced homicide, have specific provisions that modify the traditional causation requirements
• Understanding how causation operates within the context of these specific crimes is crucial for establishing criminal liability

Felony murder rule

• The felony murder rule holds defendants liable for deaths that occur during the commission of certain felonies, even if the death was unintended or accidental
• Under this rule, the intent to commit the underlying felony is sufficient to establish mens rea for the resulting death, and the death is considered a foreseeable consequence of the felonious conduct
• The felony murder rule modifies the traditional causation requirements by eliminating the need to prove intent or proximate cause concerning the death itself

Causation in drug-induced homicide

• Drug-induced homicide laws hold individuals liable for deaths resulting from the distribution or delivery of illegal drugs
• In these cases, the causal link between the defendant's drug-related conduct and the victim's death must be established
• Factors such as the proximity in time between the drug transaction and the death, the purity and potency of the drugs, and any intervening causes (like polydrug use) may be considered when determining causation

Proving causation

• Proving causation in criminal cases involves presenting evidence that establishes the necessary causal link between the defendant's conduct and the resulting harm
• Direct evidence, such as eyewitness testimony or video footage, can be used to demonstrate the defendant's actions and their immediate consequences
• Circumstantial evidence, including forensic analysis, expert testimony, and patterns of behavior, may be employed to infer causation when direct evidence is unavailable

Circumstantial evidence of causation

• Circumstantial evidence relies on inference to connect the defendant's conduct to the resulting harm
• Examples of circumstantial evidence in causation may include:
  • Forensic evidence linking the defendant's actions to the crime scene or victim
  • Medical testimony establishing the mechanism of injury or cause of death
  • Evidence of the defendant's motive, opportunity, or preparation to commit the crime
  • Witness testimony regarding the defendant's actions or statements before or after the incident
• The cumulative weight of circumstantial evidence can be sufficient to prove causation beyond a reasonable doubt

Defenses related to causation

• Defendants may raise various defenses to challenge the element of causation in criminal cases
• These defenses aim to demonstrate that the defendant's conduct was not the actual or legal cause of the harm, or that other factors intervened to break the causal chain
• Successful causation-related defenses can negate criminal liability or mitigate the defendant's culpability

Intervening cause defense

• An intervening cause defense asserts that an unforeseeable event or action occurred between the defendant's conduct and the resulting harm, breaking the causal chain
• If the intervening cause is deemed a superseding cause, it relieves the defendant of liability by becoming the new proximate cause of the harm
• Factors considered in evaluating an intervening cause include its foreseeability, independence from the defendant's actions, and sufficiency to bring about the result

Victim's conduct as intervening cause

• In some cases, the victim's own conduct may be raised as an intervening cause that relieves the defendant of liability
• For the victim's conduct to serve as a superseding cause, it must be unforeseeable, independent of the defendant's actions, and sufficient to cause the resulting harm
• Examples of victim conduct that may break the causal chain include:
  • Voluntary assumption of risk by the victim, such as engaging in dangerous activities
  • Victim's intentional or reckless behavior that contributes to their own harm
  • Victim's failure to seek medical treatment or follow medical advice, exacerbating their injuries
• The success of this defense depends on the specific circumstances and the foreseeability of the victim's conduct given the defendant's actions