Court: Court

Year: 1841

Principle(s): But for test to establish causation. Refusal to accept medical treatment does not break the chain of causation

Court: Court

Year:

Principle(s): Causing an event through an involuntary agent does not make the involuntary agent responsible for causing the event. Rather, the event is said to be caused by the party that caused the involuntary agent to cause the event. A child, animal, is an involuntary agent

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1967

Principle(s): It is not sufficient to prove that the act of the accused person could have caused death; the evidence must show that the act of the accused did cause the death of the deceased or accelerated his death, and it must also exclude the possibility of’ death having been due to some other cause.

Court: Court

Year: 1974

Principle(s): A person can only be guilty for an event if he caused the event

Court: Court

Year: 1981

Principle(s): An accused would be held to have caused an event if his acts are the operating and substantial cause of the harm suffered by the victim. Novus actus interveniens

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1984-86

Principle(s): In order to show causation, the prosecution must present evidence to show that the acts of the accused actually caused the death of the deceased. If the evidence is such that it leaves room for other possible causes of death, the prosectution would have failed in establishing causation.

Court: Court

Year: 1573

Principle(s): Causing an event through an involuntary agent. Transferred intent

Court: Court

Year: 1865

Principle(s): When deciding causation, the law ignores insignificant acts. de minimis non curat lex. The act of the accused must be the substantial cause of the event

Court: Court

Year: 1959

Principle(s): Legal causation: operating and substantial cause. For the chain of causation to be broken, the new intervening act must be of such nature to overshadow the initial act.