Eduqas A-Level Law A150QS
Parliamentary and European Law Making
Delegated Legislation
Statutory Interpretation
Judicial Precedent
The Civil Courts and Civil Process
The Criminal Process
Legal Personnel
Access to Justice and Funding
Contract: Rules and Theory of Contract LawContract
Contract: Essential Requirements and FormationContract
Contract: Express and Implied TermsContract
Contract: Misrepresentation and Economic DuressContract
Contract: Discharge of ContractContract
Contract: RemediesContract
Tort: Rules and Theory of Tort LawTort
Tort: NegligenceTort
Tort: Occupiers' LiabilityTort
Tort: Torts Connected to LandTort
Tort: Vicarious LiabilityTort
Tort: Defences and RemediesTort
Criminal Law: Rules and TheoryCriminal
Criminal Law: General Elements of LiabilityCriminal
Criminal Law: Offences Against the PersonCriminal
Criminal Law: Property OffencesCriminal
Criminal Law: Capacity DefencesCriminal
Criminal Law: Necessity Defences and Preliminary OffencesCriminal
Human Rights: Rules and TheoryHuman rights
Human Rights: Protection of Rights and Freedoms in the UKHuman rights
Human Rights: Convention ProvisionsHuman rights
Human Rights: Restrictions on Convention RightsHuman rights
Human Rights: EnforcementHuman rights
Human Rights: ReformHuman rights
Criminal Law: General Elements of Liability
Factual causation
- 3 things to know
- Components 2 and 3
Overview
Test for factual causation, de minimis principle in causation and novus actus interveniens.
What you need to know
Answer each one before you reveal it.
State the test for factual causation.
Which case illustrates the but for test?
Questions from this subtopic
Each one with the model answer underneath.
- 1
What must the prosecution prove about causation in a result crime?
Model answer
The prosecution must prove both factual causation and legal causation. Failure on either limb defeats the charge.
- 2
State the test for factual causation.
Model answer
Factual causation applies the but for test. The question is whether the result would have occurred but for the defendant's conduct.
- 3
Which case illustrates the but for test?
Model answer
R v White [1910] acquitted a son of murder after he put cyanide in his mother's drink. The mother died of a heart attack before drinking it, so the poisoning was not a factual cause.
- 4
What was the defendant in R v White [1910] convicted of instead?
Model answer
R v White [1910] resulted in a conviction for attempted murder. The intention and the more than merely preparatory act were both present.
- 5
Is the defendant's act required to be the sole cause of the result?
Model answer
The defendant's act need not be the only cause of the prohibited result. Several causes may operate together without breaking the chain.
- 6
How much must the defendant's contribution be for legal causation?
Model answer
The contribution must be more than minimal or trifling. R v Kimsey [1996] approved a direction that the contribution must be more than a slight or trifling link.
Other ways to work this
The same content, four other ways.
What is inside Levo
Six ways to work the same material.
Every question in Criminal Law: General Elements of Liability, on a schedule.
Attempt a question from memory, write the correct version, then attempt it again. Levo records the jump between your first attempt and your last, and brings each question back on the day you are due to forget it.
Or £46 a year, about £3.83 a month. Cancel anytime.