Talk:Causation in English law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I removed the following sentences because I thought them to be far too remote to add value to the explanation of causation. This notes could be added to articles on legal policy or on due process or added to the case notes in "Rochin v California".

The court considered the test of "affront to the public conscience". This is a universal policy test. For example, in the United States, in Rochin v California 342 US 165 (1952) Frankfurter J, giving the opinion of the United States Supreme Court, held that a conviction had been obtained by "conduct that shocks the conscience" (p 172) and referred to a "general principle" that "States in their prosecutions respect certain decencies of civilized conduct" (p 173). He had earlier (p 169) referred to authority on the due process clause of the United States constitution which called for judgment whether proceedings "offend those canons of decency and fairness which express the notions of justice of English-speaking peoples even toward those charged with the most heinous offenses." In the particular case, the Lords ruled that where the claimant had been convicted of a serious offence, public policy would:

"...preclude the court from entertaining the plaintiff's claim unless it could be said that he did not know the nature and quality of his act or that what he was doing was wrong."

The Law Commission (2001) comment that this application of the M'Naghten Rules might breach Article 2 European Convention on Human Rights if the illegality defence were to be applied to bar all claims by those claimants (or their dependants) stemming from conduct taking or endangering their own life. For a comprehensive review of the English authorities on "affront to the public conscience", see A (FC) and others (FC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2005) UKHL 71. [1]