R v Hughes [2013] UKSC 56

Facts

  • The case concerned a fatal road traffic accident involving a driver (the defendant) who held a valid licence and insurance.
  • The defendant was involved in a collision with another driver who was under the influence of heroin.
  • The prosecution argued that the defendant's presence on the road was a factual cause of the accident, as applying the 'but-for' test, the incident would not have occurred without his vehicle being at the scene.
  • The defendant’s driving was otherwise entirely lawful and correct.
  • The Supreme Court was asked to determine whether the defendant could be criminally accountable for the resulting death in these circumstances.

Issues

  1. Whether factual causation, established via the 'but-for' test, is alone sufficient for criminal liability.
  2. Whether legal causation in criminal law requires the defendant’s actions to be a significant or more than minimal cause of harm.
  3. Whether blameworthiness is a necessary component of legal causation for criminal accountability.

Decision

  • The Supreme Court held that factual causation, while necessary, is not alone sufficient to establish criminal liability.
  • The Court clarified that legal causation requires the defendant’s conduct to be a major or more than minimal cause of the harm, not merely a background fact or trivial contribution.
  • It was determined that legal causation also requires an element of blameworthiness in the defendant’s conduct.
  • As the defendant’s driving was lawful and the principal cause of the accident was the victim’s own impairment, the conviction was overturned.
  • The Court concluded that legal causation filters liability to ensure that sanction is reserved for blameworthy conduct with a strong connection to the harmful result.

Legal Principles

  • Legal causation in criminal law distinguishes between mere factual involvement and conduct that is a blameworthy, substantial cause of the outcome.
  • The ‘but-for’ test alone establishes factual causation but does not suffice for criminal guilt.
  • A more than trivial—that is, significant—contribution to the harm is required for legal causation.
  • There must be a direct link between the defendant’s guilty conduct and the result for criminal accountability.
  • The principle was affirmed and applied in subsequent case law, such as R v Taylor [2016] UKSC 5 and R v Bawa [2016] EWCA Crim 473, which stressed that the defendant’s breach or dangerous conduct must be a major cause of harm, not just part of the circumstances.

Conclusion

R v Hughes [2013] UKSC 56 established that only conduct which is both blameworthy and a significant cause of harm meets the requirements of legal causation in criminal law. This decision clarified and shaped the distinction between factual and legal causation, influencing the interpretation and application of causation in subsequent criminal cases.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal