Quick questions on The rules of criminal law: actus reus, mens rea and causation - WJEC A-Level Law

Causation has two stages. Factual causation uses the "but for" test (R v White, where poison did not cause the death that occurred first). Legal causation requires the defendant's act to be a more than minimal (operating and substantial) cause (R v Smith), and the thin skull rule means the defendant takes the victim as found (R v Blaue). A novus actus interveniens (the victim's unreasonable act, a third party, or medical treatment that is "palpably wrong", R v Jordan) may break the chain, though negligent treatment usually does not where the original wound is still operating (R v Cheshire).

Some offences are of strict liability, requiring no mens rea as to at least one element of the actus reus (often regulatory offences such as selling food unfit for consumption). They are justified by the need for high standards and ease of enforcement, but criticised for punishing the blameless.

Name the two forms of intention in criminal law. [2 marks]

What is the 'but for' test and which case illustrates it? [2 marks]

Explain actus reus, mens rea and the rules on causation in criminal law. [12 marks]