Explain the meaning of the term ‘causation’

Causation is an element of criminal liability. Causation is divided into factual causation and legal causation. Factual causation is the starting point and consists of applying the 'but for' test. In most instances, where there exist no complicating factors, factual causation on its own will establish causation. However, in some cases it will also be necessary to consider legal causation. The chain of causation can be broken if the defendant will not be the legal cause if he can show that the victim caused the end result himself. However, this will only succeed if the victim’s reaction was unreasonable. Also the chain of causation can be broken by bad medical treatment.

Factual causation is established by applying the 'but for' test. This asks, 'but for the actions of the defendant, would the result have occurred?' If yes, the result would have occurred in any event, the D is not liable. If the answer is no, the D is liable as it can be said that their action was a factual cause of the result. For example in the case R V White the D tried to poison his mum, but she died of a heart attack before the poison had any effect so his actions did not pass the but for test.

Once it has been established that the accused is the factual cause of the harm suffered by the V, it then has to be shown that he is also the legal cause. This makes sure that people are not found guilty when they are not to blame for the end result. The court asks whether the D’s act continues to make a significant contribution to the end result. An example of Legal causation is R V Smith, Smith was found guilty as the wounds were still a substantial and operating cause at the time of death and so the medical treatment cant break the chain of causation.

Explain the meaning of the term ‘Mens Rea’

Mens Rea is the mental element required by the offence in question. Mens Rea shows the Judge whether the D intended to commit the crime, for example the Mens Rea of Murder is ‘intended to kill or cause GBH’. Other crimes do not always require such a high degree of fault. They can be committed intentionally or recklessly. If the intention to commit the crime is present the Mens Rea will be established. There is also direct intent. The jury accept that the main purpose of the D was to bring about the consequence, So the D intended the consequence of his act. In R V Mohan the House of Lords define DI as ‘the main aim or desire to bring about the consequence.

On the other hand there is indirect or oblique intention, this is where the consequence was not the purpose of the D’s action, id the D’s desire was different from the consequence of his act. In Woolin the D threw his baby against a wall, killing the baby. The D claimed his intent was to stop him crying but the House of Lords directed the jury to infer that the D had intention. Again in R V Matthews And Alleyne, The D’s pushed the victim from bridge into a river knowing he could not swim, he fell and drowned. The court of Appeal held that the D could foresee the consequence of their actions and were aware death was inevitable.

There is also Recklessness, this means the taking of an unjustified risk and an awareness of the risk. In Cunningham he was was found guilty as he knew the risks of breaking into the gas meter yet he took these risks and poisoned a near by neighbour.

Explain the meaning of the term ‘Transferred Malice’
Transferred malice is where a person has the mens rea of one crime, and commits the Actus Reus of the same crime although not in the way he expected, he can still be found guilty. The rule operates only where it is the same type of offence the D wishes to commit on either the person of object. TM can transfer from person to person or object to object.
In R V Latimer, he appealed on the ground that he had not intended to hurt her and therefore lacked the mens rea of the offence. His appealed was dismissed. There was no requirement that the Mens rea of a crime should relate to a named victim.