03 Conduct: actus reus Flashcards
What is the Voluntariness Requirement?
- Lord Denning - ‘the requirement that it should be a voluntary act is essential…in every criminal case’ - Bratty [1963]
- If the defendant is not acting voluntarily then they are acting as an automaton - AG’s ref. 2/92
- G. Williams questions this rule as there are some exceptions; 1) where there is liability for omission - Speck 2) where the actus reus is a state of affairs - possession of drugs 3) where the defendant is liable for the acts of another
Omissions?
- There is generally no liability for omissions under English law
- There is only liability when the defendant has breached a duty of care i.e. in Stone & Dobinson [1977]
In which 6 situations will there be a duty to act?
1 - Statutory Duty: i.e. refusing to give a breath sample under the Road Traffic Act 1998 s.6
2 - Law Enforcement: Policemen have a duty to aid members of the public in danger - Dytham [1979]
3 - Contractual Duty: A contract may create a duty to aid another and there may be criminal repercussions if they fail - Pittwood [1902]
4 - Assumed Duties: Voluntarily assuming somebody’s welfare can create a duty of care - Evans [2009]/Stone & Dobinson [1977]/Gibbons & Proctor [1919]
5 - Continuing Act: This may look like an omission but the actus reus and mens rea marry up - Fagan [1969]
6 - Creation of Danger: Creating a danger i.e. a fire may create a duty to act to avoid causing danger - Miller [1983]
What is required if there is a Duty to Act?
- Reasonableness Test: If it was reasonable for the defendant to act then they will be liable - i.e. saving a child drowning in a pool
- Equally if it would be unreasonable to act then there is no liability - i.e. running into a collapsing building
- The defendant cannot be convicted if the result would have occurred even with their intervention
Distinguishing Between Acts and Omissions
- Ashworth argues that many cases are ambiguous i.e. Speck [1977]
- Omissions are deemed less morally culpable
- DPP v Santa-Bermudez [2003]: the defendant was found guilty of battery for what looked like an omission
- Bland [1993]: the leading case on the distinction. Withdrawal of treatment was characterised as an omission and in normal cases would have been a breach of duty, but the treatment was not in his best interest
Situational Offences?
- These are where a person is guilty for being in a particular situation i.e. drunk in possession of a vehicle
- Larsonneur [1933] is an early example of this
- In Winzar [1983] the drunk defendant was moved onto the road by the police but still convicted
`But For’ Causation:
- A cause cannot be a legal cause unless it is a factual cause, but not all factual causes are legal causes - Hughes [2013]
- White [1910] demonstrates factual causation - the victim’s heart-attack was unrelated to his poisoning
- This is a good starting point for determining who isn’t liable but is too broad to be used as the general test for causation
Two Tests for Legal Causation:
1 - Substantial: Cheshire [1991] - an act must contribute ‘a significant extent’ to be substantial. It must not be ‘slight or trifling’ - Kimsey [1996]
- Operating: The act of the defendant must be an operating cause, not the novus actus interveniens of another as in Rafferty [2007]
Breaking the Chain of Causation:
There are 4 possible results where A injures V and B inflicts further injury and the victim dies:
- If the victim dies from a combination of the injuries, both A and B are liable - concurrent liability as in the 2010 Victoria station murder
- B committed a novus actus interveniens in which case A is not liable
- If B’s action causes injury of negligible effect then A will have caused the death
- Neither act may have caused the death, unlikely
Novus Actus Interveniens:
- The leading case is Kennedy [2007] which instated 2 requirements for a novus actus interveniens. If B’s act is:
1. A free, voluntary and informed act, and
2. It renders A’s no longer a substantial and operating cause
Then it is a novus actus interveniens
Free, Voluntary and Informed Act:
- There is no break in the chain of causation if the person is actin voluntarily
- If somebody is acting to protect themselves then their act will not be free, voluntary and informed
- A person assisting law enforcement will not break the chain of causation; i.e. the police marksman in Paggett [1983]
- An action is not informed if they do not know the circumstances of their action - i.e. a postman delivering a parcel bomb
D’s Action no Longer an an Operating and Substantial Cause:
- This is a major requirement for finding a novus actus interveniens
- Medical treatment will not ordinarily break the chain of causation unless it is exceptionally bad, such as in Jordan [1956]:
a. The original stab wound had virtually healed at the time of death and so in medical terms the wound inflicted by the defendant had not contributed to the death of the deceased
b. The treatment provided by the hospital was abnormal and grossly negligent
Acts of the Victim Breaking the Chain:
- The 2 leading cases are Roberts [1971] and Blaue [1975]
- Roberts fond that the victim trying to escape the defendant cannot be held to have broken the chain of causation if their reaction was ‘reasonably foreseeable’ given their characteristics
- Blaue affirmed the eggshell skull rule that the defendant must take the victim as they find them
What are the Basics of the Actus Reus?
- The conduct element of the offence
- i.e. Murder - Causing death
- ‘Actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea’ - an act is not criminal in the absence of a guilty mind
- The conduct which the criminal law considers harmful.
What happened in Michael [1840]?
- A mother wanted her baby dead and so gave a bottle of poison to a nurse saying that it was medecine. The nurse placed the bottle on the mantlepiece and a 5 year old child gave it to the baby
- The acts of the nurse and the child were not free, voluntary and informed
