levo

Criminal Law: General Elements of Liability

Legal causation and intervening acts

  • 3 things to know
  • Components 2 and 3

Overview

Operating and substantial cause test and thin skull rule.

What you need to know

Answer each one before you reveal it.

Your recallNot started
Numbers

State the operating and substantial cause test.

Numbers

Which case held that medical treatment broke the chain of causation?

Numbers

What test did R v Cheshire [1991] set for medical negligence breaking the chain?

Questions from this subtopic

Each one with the model answer underneath.

  1. 1

    State the operating and substantial cause test.

    Model answer

    R v Smith [1959] held that a defendant remains liable while the original wound is an operating and substantial cause. Poor medical treatment does not break the chain unless the wound is merely the setting.

  2. 2

    Which case held that medical treatment broke the chain of causation?

    Model answer

    R v Jordan (1956) quashed a murder conviction where the victim was given a drug he was known to be allergic to. The treatment was described as palpably wrong and not normal.

  3. 3

    What test did R v Cheshire [1991] set for medical negligence breaking the chain?

    Model answer

    R v Cheshire [1991] set a high threshold for medical treatment breaking the chain of causation. Treatment must be so independent and so potent in causing death that the defendant's act becomes insignificant.

  4. 4

    What is the thin skull rule?

    Model answer

    The thin skull rule requires the defendant to take the victim as found. A pre-existing weakness that makes the harm worse does not reduce liability.

  5. 5

    Which case applied the thin skull rule to a religious belief?

    Model answer

    R v Blaue [1975] convicted a defendant of manslaughter where a stabbed Jehovah's Witness refused a blood transfusion. The refusal did not break the chain because the whole person must be taken as found.

  6. 6

    When does a victim's attempt to escape break the chain of causation?

    Model answer

    R v Roberts (1971) held that a victim's escape breaks the chain only if the response was daft and unforeseeable. A foreseeable attempt to escape leaves the defendant liable.

Other ways to work this

The same content, four other ways.

What is inside Levo

Six ways to work the same material.

1Closed book
2Open book
3Closed book

The 3-step method, run for you

Answer cold, learn it, then prove it stuck. Levo tracks the jump between your first attempt and your last.

Parliamentary and European Law Making
Delegated Legislation
Statutory Interpretation
Judicial Precedent

Cram a whole paper in one sitting

Sort every topic into what you know and what you do not, then drill only the weak ones.

The court sits in .
StrasbourgLondonParis

Blank Blitz makes facts automatic

Rapid timed gap-fills on the terms and numbers you need to recall without thinking.

AAn interim injunction restrains publication before trial.
BPublication cannot be undone.
CAn injunction may be the only effective remedy.

Build It gets the exam shape right

Assemble a full-mark answer from its marking points, in the order an examiner wants them.

A Public Bill changes the general law.
TrueFalse

Test It catches misconceptions

Spot the fault in a statement. The traps are the mistakes students actually make.

721941163128510

Brain Breaks between sessions

Short focus games to reset attention, so the next set lands better than the last.

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.