1.2 Actus Reus (Criminal Conduct)

Question 1

For a person to be found guilty of a criminal offence you must show that he / she:

Answer 1

• acted in a particular way
• failed to act in a particular way, or
• brought about a state of affairs

Question 2

When proving the required actus reus, you must show:

Answer 2

• that the defendant’s conduct was voluntary; and

- that it occurred while the defendant still had the requisite mens rea

Question 3

What is the difference between a voluntary and involuntary act?

Answer 3

A voluntary act is something DONE by the defendant

An involuntary act is something that HAPPENS to a defendant

Question 4

Are reflexive actions generally classed as being willed or voluntary?

Answer 4

No

Question 5

Can the unexpected onset of a sudden physical impairment render any linked actions ‘involuntary’?

Answer 5

Yes

Question 6

What is automatism?

Answer 6

The absence of a fundamental requirement for any criminal offence (the ‘actus reus’)

Question 7

According to case law, what would be considered as automatism in court?

Answer 7

A complete lack of voluntary control

Question 8

How might the defence of automatism be affected?

Answer 8

If the loss of control is brought about by voluntary intoxication or by insanity, the defence becomes narrower

Question 9

Does the mens rea need to remain unchanged throughout the actus reus?

Answer 9

No - if X poisons Y intending to kill Y, it will not alter X’s criminal liability if X changes his mind immediately after giving the poison (or even if X does everything he can to halt its effects)

Question 10

Can an actus reus begin without the mens rea?

Answer 10

Yes - the required state of mind may come later while the actus reus is still continuing

Question 11

If the mens rea ‘catches up’ with the actus reus, when is the offence complete?

Answer 11

At the first moment that the two elements unite

Question 12

Define omission.

Answer 12

Ordinarily, there is no liability for a failure (or omission) to act unless the law specifically imposes such a DUTY on a person

Question 13

What does DUTY to act stand for?

Answer 13

D - Dangerous situation created by the defendant
U - Under statute, contract or a person’s public office
T - Taken it upon him/herself
Y - Young person

Question 14

Give three examples of the U of DUTY.

Answer 14

Statute - driver who fails to stop at the scene of an accident (s. 170 Road Traffic Act)
Contract - a crossing keeper failed to close the gates (a job that was part of his contractual obligations)
Public officer - police officer watches a man beaten to death

Question 15

Expand on the T of DUTY.

Answer 15

The defendant voluntarily undertakes to care for another who is unable to care for him/herself as a result of age, illness or infirmity and then fails to care for that person

Question 16

How does a parental relationship affect liability for omission?

Answer 16

An obligation exists for a parent to look after the health and welfare of a child

Question 17

What do you need to prove for omission having established a duty?

Answer 17

You must show that the defendant has voluntarily omitted to act as required or that he/she has not done enough to discharge that duty

Question 18

What does it mean to prove a causal link?

Answer 18

Once the actus reus has been proved, you must prove that the consequences would not have happened ‘but for’ the defendant’s act or omission

Question 19

Does a significant delay break the causal link?

Answer 19

Not always - in some cases a significant delay can occur between the acts if there is no intervening event that diverts or hinders the offence

Question 20

When can the causal link be broken by a new intervening act?

Answer 20

When the new act is ‘free, deliberate and informed’

Question 21

Will an intervening act generally break the causal link?

Answer 21

No

Question 22

Is it foreseeable that a victim’s injuries may be misdiagnosed or that treatment is not carried out correclty?

Answer 22

Yes - incorrect medical treatment is hardly ever categorised by the courts as amounting to an intervening act

Question 23

Is a defendant liable if complications arise which cause a victim’s death?

Answer 23

Yes, if the complications are still a natural consequence of the original act

Question 24

What does it mean for defendants to ‘take their victims as they find them’?

Answer 24

If victims have a particular characteristic which makes the consequences of an act against them much more acute, that is the defendant’s bad luck

Question 25

If an assault victim dies after refusing a blood transfusion on religious grounds, is the causal link broken?

Answer 25

No

Question 26

Can the actions of victims be significant in the chain of causation?

Answer 26

Yes - where such actions take place, the victim’s behaviour will not necessarily be regarded as introducing a new intervening act

Question 27

When might a victim’s actions not cause a new and intervening act?

Answer 27

If the victim’s actions are those which might reasonably be anticipated from any victim in such a situation

Question 28

Can an ‘act of God’ or exceptional natural event break the chain of causation?

Answer 28

Yes, if it was the sole immediate cause of the consequences in question

Question 29

What are the two ways of attracting criminal liability for an offence?

Answer 29

As a principal or an accessory (also called secondary party)

Question 30

What is a principal offender?

Answer 30

One whose conduct has met all the requirements of the particular offence

Question 31

What is an accessory?

Answer 31

Someone who helped in or brought about the commission of an offence

Question 32

When will an accessory be treated by a court in the same way as a principal offender?

Answer 32

If they ‘aid, abet, counsel or procure’ the commission of an offence

Question 33

Define ‘aiding’.

Answer 33

Giving help, support or assistance

Question 34

Define ‘abetting’

Answer 34

Inciting, instigating or encouraging

Question 35

Define ‘counselling’

Answer 35

Advising or instructing

Question 36

Define ‘procuring’

Answer 36

Bringing about

Question 37

What happens if in accessory is present at the scene of a crime when it is committed?

Answer 37

Their presence may amount to encouragement which would support a charge of aiding or abetting (if they were there as part of an agreement in respect of the principal offence)

Question 38

If a person is passing by and watches the offence, is this aiding or abetting?

Answer 38

No - the ordinary citizen is under no duty to prevent an offence occurring and failure to do so will not create liability as an accomplice

Question 39

What must a prosecution prove when an accessory (D) is not present during the substantive offence by the principal (P)?

Answer 39

• An act done by D
• Which in fact assisted the later commission of the offence
• That D did the act deliberately realising that it was capable of assisting the offence
• That D, at the time of doing the act, contemplated the commission of the offence by P
• That, when doing the act, D intended to assist P

Question 40

Does counselling an offence require a causal link?

Answer 40

No - as long as the principal offender is aware of the ‘counsellor’s’ advice or encouragement, the latter will be guilty as an accessory, even if the principal would have committed the offence anyway

Question 41

What must you prove to show that a defendant procured an offence?

Answer 41

A causal link between his / her conduct and the offence

Question 42

Can an accessory be liable if the principal cannot be traced or identified?

Answer 42

Yes

Question 43

Can an accessory be convicted of procuring an offence if the principal is acquitted or has a defence for their actions?

Answer 43

Yes

Question 44

If an accessory had some responsibility and the actual ability to control the actions of the principal, could their failure to do so attract liability?

Answer 44

Yes

Question 45

Can an accessory avoid liability for assistance rendered to the principal by changing their mind before the criminal act is carried out?

Answer 45

In the absence of some overwhelming supervening event, only by acting in a way that amounts to the countermanding of any earlier assistance

Question 46

Can a person whom a law is intended to protect from certain types of offence be an accessory to such offences committed against them?

Answer 46

No - e.g. a 15-year-old girl is protected from people having sex with her, and cannot be charged as an accessory to an offence if she has sex with someone

Question 47

What is the mens rea needed to convict an accessory?

Answer 47

Proof of intention to aid as well as of knowledge of the circumstances

Question 48

Are recklessness and negligence enough to convict an accessory?

Answer 48

No - there is a requirement for proof of intention

Question 49

What is the minimum state of mind required of an accessory to an offence?

Answer 49

They must at least know the essential matters that constitute that offence

Question 50

What is a joint criminal enterprise?

Answer 50

Where two (or more) people embark on the commission of an offence by one or both (or all) of them, when they all have a common goal - to commit an offence

Question 51

Would each of the parties in a joint enterprise be liable for the consequences of the actions of the other in the pursuit of their joint enterprise?

Answer 51

Yes, as they each share a combined purpose

This is the case even if the consequences of the joint enterprise are a result of a mistake

Question 52

Define ‘parasitic accessory liability’.

Answer 52

When one party in a joint enterprise goes beyond that which was agreed or contemplated by the other, and the actions of the other are a departure from the nature and type of crime that was envisaged by the party

Question 53

Is a person who joins in a crime which any reasonable person would realise involves a risk of harm, and death results, guilty of manslaughter?

Answer 53

Yes, at least

Question 54

Is a person who intentionally encourages or assists in the commission of a crime as guilty as the person who physically commits it?

Answer 54

Yes

Question 55

Can legally incorporated companies commit offences?

Answer 55

Yes

Question 56

Can companies be guilty as accessories?

Answer 56

Yes

Question 57

Can companies be capable of aiding and abetting offences that they could not commit as a principal?

Answer 57

Yes

Question 58

Is liability personal?

Answer 58

Yes - but there are occasions where liability can be transmitted vicariously to another
This prevents individuals or organisations from evading liability by getting others to carry out unlawful activities on their behalf