English Criminal Law/Actus reus



{| style="width:65%;"
 * style="background-color: cream; border: solid 1px gray; padding: 1em;" valign="top" |

Causation
For any defendant to be convicted of any crime, causation must be proved. In practice, this is rarely demonstrated since most causation is obvious and uncontested. If A punches B in the face, there is no necessity for a legal argument to prove that the actual bodily harm suffered by B was caused by A. However, in some cases, it may be questioned whether the acts of the accused did cause the result.
 * }

{| style="width:65%;"
 * style="background-color: cream; border: solid 1px gray; padding: 1em;" valign="top" |

Factual Causation
The first test of factual causation poses the question: But for the actions of the defendant, would the result have occurred?
 * The "But-For" Test

Paraphrasing, the court is generally trying to discover whether the consequence would have resulted regardless of the accused's actions. If the answer to this question is no, and the result could only have occurred due to the actions of the defendant, factual causation is one step towards established. If the answer is yes, and the result would have occurred anyway, then factual causation is not established.
 * }

{| style="width:65%;"
 * style="background-color: cream; border: solid 1px gray; padding: 1em;" valign="top" |

Legal Causation
The three tests for establishing legal causation are the 'Thin Skull' test, Operative and Significant Cause, and Novus Actus Interveniens.


 * The "Thin-Skull" test
 * Operative and Significant Cause
 * Novus Actus Interveniens
 * }

{| style="width:65%;"
 * style="background-color: cream; border: solid 1px gray; padding: 1em;" valign="top" |

Purely a matter of law?
As outlined above causation in criminal law is understood as a chain of events linked to each other - it is a link between the defendant’s act and the consequence which occurred as a result of that act. As causation represents an integral element of result crimes - the one to be proved, the law developed certain tests to establish it. They represent a two-stage process or two tests to be applied in succession. The first test is factual causation and the second one is legal causation.
 * }

{| style="width:65%;"
 * style="background-color: cream; border: solid 1px gray; padding: 1em;" valign="top" |

Liability for omissions
Generally, the law of England imposes no criminal liability for omissions - there is no general duty to act. If, for example, a person walking along the beach one day sees a drowning child in the water, he is under no legal duty to intervene, even if it would be easy for him to do so.
 * }

{| style="width:65%;"
 * style="background-color: cream; border: solid 1px gray; padding: 1em;" valign="top" |