You will find two types of causation that happen to be necessary to set up criminal liability. These are informative causation and cause in law (also known as legal causation).
Informative causation ensures that the accused can only be seen guilty if the consequence will not have occurred вЂbut for' the defendant's conduct. This was seen in the situation of Pagett (1982). Likewise, a accused cannot be identified guilty if the victim's loss of life was not related to the defendant's actions (as in Light, 1910).
Legal causation, where the actions of D should be found to obtain caused the consequence, can be established as long as the вЂchain of causation' (between the act and the consequence) will not be broken.
There are a number of ways in which this chain can be broken,: First of all, through the act of a third party, an example of which is medical treatment that may be deemed being вЂpalpably wrong' such as that seen in Test (1956); Second, where the victim's own action is so daft as to not end up being reasonably expected, as observed in Williams (1992); Finally, because of a natural yet unpredictable event, such as a ton or an earthquake.
Despite external factors, the chain of causation is definitely not regarded to have recently been broken provided that the D's actions are definitely more than a вЂminimal' cause of the consequence. In the same way, the defendant must also take those defendant because they find them. This is known as the вЂthin skull rule' (as seen in Blaue 1975), meaning that there is certainly legal causation even if D's actions probably would not have caused those outcomes in a regular or normal person.