Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Year 1 A level Law AQA Textbook > 19-Actus reus > Flashcards

19-Actus reus Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
1
Q

What is a ‘conduct crime’?

A

A crime where the consequence doesn’t have to be proven. Like theft where the offence is the actual crime itself.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

A crime where the consequence doesn’t have to be proven. Like theft where the offence is the actual crime itself.

What is this a definition of?

A

A ‘conduct crime’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is a ‘consequence crime’?

A

A crime that requires the conduct to result in a consequence like s47 OAPA 1861 where the conduct is ‘application of force’ and the consequence is ‘ABH’.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What are ‘state of affairs’ crimes?

A

Where allowing a state of affairs which is illegal conduct continue. Such as possession of a weapon in a public place.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Where allowing a state of affairs which is illegal conduct continue. Such as possession of a weapon in a public place.

What is this a definition of?

A

State of affairs crime

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

A crime that requires the conduct to result in a consequence like s47 OAPA 1861 where the conduct is ‘application of force’ and the consequence is ‘ABH’.

What is this a definition of?

A

Consequence crimes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What must the actus reus be for it to be considered a crime?

A

Actus reus must be voluntary-but there have been exceptions R v Larsonneur (1933)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What case demonstrates that even someone involuntarily inflicting harm on a third party due to the actions of the first party has not necessarily committed a crime?

A

R v Mitchell (1983)

Facts: D pushed someone into V (who died from injuries). D convicted of unlawful act manslaughter. Man who was pushed was not charged.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

R v Mitchel (1983)

What does this case demonstrate regarding voluntariness of actus reus?

A

Demonstrates: that even if someone is pushed into someone else causing harm to the latter person then they are not necessarily guilty of a crime.

Facts: D pushed someone into V (who died from injuries). D convicted of unlawful act manslaughter. Man who was pushed was not charged.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What case shows a rare instance where D can be convicted of an offence they didn’t voluntarily commit?

A

R v Larsonneur (1933)

Facts: D had been ordered to leave UK and went to Ireland. Ireland didn’t want her either so she was deported to the UK and arrested immediately for being an illegal alien.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

R v Larsonneur (1933)

What does this case demonstrate regarding the actus reus of a crime?

A

Demonstrates: a rare circumstance where D can be found guilty of an offence even though they did not voluntarily commit the act.

Facts: D had been ordered to leave UK and went to Ireland. Ireland didn’t want her either so she was deported to the UK and arrested immediately for being an illegal alien.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What is the general rule regarding omissions constituting an actus reus?

Who can be quoted explaining this rule?

A

Normal rule is omission cannot constitute actus reus, but there are exceptions.

Stephen J

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What is the exception to the general rule regarding omissions not constituting an actus reus?

A

An omission is only sufficient when there is a legal duty to act.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What are the circumstances in which a duty exists, therefore meaning someone must act to protect an individual?

A

1) Statutory duty
2) Contractual duty
3) Relationship duty
4) Voluntarily assumed duty
5) Positional duty
6) Because D set in a chain of events

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Omissions constituting an actus reus

1) Examples of statutory duty that mean someone must act?

A

1) s170 Road Traffic Act 1988-failing to stop or report a RTA
2) s1 Children and Young Persons Act 1933-Parents must provide clothes, food, shelter
3) s5 Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004-Allowing the death of a child or vulnerable person

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

s170 Road Traffic Act 1988

A

Failing to stop or report an RTA

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Failing to stop or report an RTA

Which statute?

A

s170 Road Traffic Act 1988

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

s1 Children and Young Persons Act 1933

A

Parents must provide clothes, food, shelter.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Parents must provide clothes, food, shelter.

What statute?

A

s1 Children and Young Persons Act 1933

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

s5 Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004

A

Person in same household cannot allow the death of a child or vulnerable person

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Person in same household cannot allow the death of a child or vulnerable person

What statute?

A

s5 Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Omissions constituting an actus reus.

2) Contractual duty

Case example?

A

R v Pittwood (1902)

Facts: Rail crossing guard failed to close gate, leading to the death of a pedestrian. Keeper found guilty of manslaughter.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

R v Pittwood (1902)

What does this case demonstrate regarding omissions as an actus reus?

A

The second way a duty can exist that omitting to perform can constitute an offence.-CONTRACTUAL DUTY.

Facts: Rail crossing guard failed to close gate, leading to the death of a pedestrian. Keeper found guilty of manslaughter.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Omissions constituting an actus reus.

3) Relationship duty.

Case example?

A

R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918)

Facts: Father of young girl purposefully neglected to feed her and she died-step mum also found guilty because she was held to have undertaken the task of caring for the child.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918)

What does this case demonstrate regarding omissions as an actus reus?

A

The third way in which a duty may exist that omitting to perform can constitute an offence-RELATIONSHIP.

The fourth way in which a duty may exist-VOLUNTARILY ASSUMED DUTY.

Facts: Father of young girl purposefully neglected to feed her and she died-step mum also found guilty because she was held to have undertaken the task of caring for the child.

26
Q

Omissions constituting an actus reus.

4) Voluntarily assumed duty

Case example?

A

R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918)

Facts: Specifically referring to the step mum, she had voluntarily assumed the duty of caring for the young girl who died.

27
Q

Omissions constituting an actus reus.

5) Positional duty

Case example?

A

R v Dytham (1979)

Facts: D was police officer on duty who witnessed a man being beaten to death but did not act-D found to have neglected his duty.

28
Q

R v Dytham (1979)

What does this case demonstrate regarding omissions as an actus reus?

A

The fifth way in which a duty can exist that omitting to perform can constitute an offence-POSTITIONAL DUTY.

Facts: D was police officer on duty who witnessed a man being beaten to death but did not act-D found to have neglected his duty.

29
Q

Omissions constituting an actus reus.

6) D set in motion a chain of events

Case example?

A

R v Miller (1983)

Facts: D was a squatter who fell asleep smoking and when he awoke to find his mattress on fire, simply changed beds-D found guilty of arson.

30
Q

R v Miller (1983)

What does this case demonstrate regarding omissions as an actus reus?

A

The sixth way in which a duty can exist that omitting to perform can constitute an offence-CHAIN of EVENTS by D.

Facts: D was a squatter who fell asleep smoking and when he awoke to find his mattress on fire, simply changed beds-D found guilty of arson.

31
Q

Arguments in favour of a ‘good Samaritan law’?

A

1) Matches society’s current moral views

2) May lead to better injury prevention

32
Q

Arguments against a ‘good Samaritan law’?

A

1) Why should people be expected to act as rescuers when there are already well trained rescuers they pay tax for.
2) Untrained rescuer may do more harm than good.
3) Crowds witnessing an event can’t all be prosecuted if they don’t act.

33
Q

What case is an example of the ‘but for’ principle?

A

R v Pagett (1983)

Facts: D used GF as a human shield and she died. D found guilty of manslaughter because the girl wouldn’t have died ‘but for’ his actions.

34
Q

R v Pagett (1983)

What does this case demonstrate regarding causation?

A

‘But for’ principle

Facts: D used GF as a human shield and she died. D found guilty of manslaughter because the girl wouldn’t have died ‘but for’ his actions.

35
Q

What is the ‘but for’ principle?

A

It is a factual cause where the result wouldn’t have occurred ‘but for’ the actions of D.

36
Q

It is a factual cause where the result wouldn’t have occurred ‘but for’ the actions of D.

What is this a definition of?

A

The ‘but for’ principle.

37
Q

What case demonstrates that factual causation on its own is not necessarily enough for liability?

A

R v Hughes (2013)

Facts: D should not have been driving as he was without licence and insurance. When V crashed his car into D’s car through negligence and V died-prosecution attempted to prove causation through the ‘but for’ principle simply as his presence was un warranted-not deemed to be sufficient.

38
Q

R v Hughes (2013)

What does this case demonstrate regarding causation?

A

That factual causation alone is not necessarily sufficient for liability.

Facts: D should not have been driving as he was without licence and insurance. When V crashed his car into D’s car through negligence and V died-prosecution attempted to prove causation through the ‘but for’ principle simply as his presence was un warranted-not deemed to be sufficient.

39
Q

Causation
What case demonstrates that for ‘legal cause’ the rule is that any conduct which is more than ‘minimal’ is the cause of the consequence?

A

R v Kimsey (1996)

Facts: D was involved in a high speed chase and lost control of car killing another user-judge directed jury that any contributing action which is more than minimal is sufficient for legal cause.

40
Q

R v Kimsey (1996)

What does this case demonstrate regarding causation?

A

For ‘legal cause’ the action has to be anything more than minimal for D to have cause the consequence.

Facts: D was involved in a high speed chase and lost control of car killing another user-judge directed jury that any contributing action which is more than minimal is sufficient for legal cause.

41
Q

What case demonstrates the ‘thin skull’ rule?

a.k.a take the victim as you find them

A

R v Blaue (1975)

Facts: Young woman was stabbed by D and refused to have a blood transfusion as she was a Jehovah’s witness-she died and D was found guilty of manslaughter.

42
Q

R v Blaue (1975)

What does this case demonstrate regarding causation?

A

The ‘thin skull’ rule a.k.a take the victim as you find them.

Facts: Young woman was stabbed by D and refused to have a blood transfusion as she was a Jehovah’s witness-she died and D was found guilty of manslaughter.

43
Q

What circumstances can break the chain of causation?

A

1) An act of a third party
2) The V’s own act
3) Natural but unpredictable event

44
Q

In what circumstance would medical intervention break the chain of causation?

A

Medical mistake would have to be independent of D’s act and so potent in causing death.

45
Q

What case demonstrates that an ‘operating’ injury would prevent medical intervention from breaking the chain of causation?

A

R v Smith (1959)

Facts: One soldier stabs another soldier in the lung and the V is dropped on way to hosp. and is given compressions at hosp. frustrating the injury-D still found guilty of murder as it was the injury he inflicted that killed V.

46
Q

What is meant by an ‘operating’ injury regarding medical intervention breaking the chain of causation?

A

A wound that caused the V’s death regardless of medical intervention frustrating it further.

47
Q

R v Smith (1959)

What does this case demonstrate regarding causation?

A

That a wound that is still ‘operating’ will act to prevent medical intervention from breaking the chain of causation.

Facts: One soldier stabs another soldier in the lung and the V is dropped on way to hosp. and is given compressions at hosp. frustrating the injury-D still found guilty of murder as it was the injury he inflicted that killed V.

48
Q

What case demonstrates that medical treatment would only break the chain of causation if it is ‘so independent’ of D’s act’s and ‘in itself so potent in causing death’?

A

R v Cheshire (1991)

Facts: D shot victim in thigh and stomach and V received a tracheotomy as treatment. Many months later when V had recovered from wounds V died from complications arising from the use of the tracheotomy-D still liable.

49
Q

R v Cheshire (1991)

What does this demonstrate regarding causation?

A

Demonstrates: that for medical treatment to break the chain of causation it must be ‘so independent’ of D’s actions.

Facts: D shot victim in thigh and stomach and V received a tracheotomy as treatment. Many months later when V had recovered from wounds V died from complications arising from the use of the tracheotomy-D still liable.

50
Q

What case is an example of medical treatment breaking the chain of causation?

A

R v Jordan (1956)

Facts: When V’s wounds were almost healed doctors gave him a large dose of antibiotics to which it was known he was allergic. V died-D not liable.

51
Q

R v Jordan (1956)

What is this case an example of regarding causation?

A

Example of: a case where medical treatment did break the chain of causation.

Facts: When V’s wounds were almost healed doctors gave him a large dose of antibiotics to which it was known he was allergic. V died-D not liable.

52
Q

What case shows that switching off of life support machines does not break the chain of causation?

A

R v Malcherek (1981)

Facts: D stabbed wife in stomach and when it was found she was brain dead whilst on life support doctors decided to switch life support off. D still liable.

53
Q

R v Malcherek (1981)

What does this case demonstrate regarding causation?

A

Demonstrates: that switching off a life support machine does not break the chain of causation.

Facts: D stabbed wife in stomach and when it was found she was brain dead whilst on life support doctors decided to switch life support off. D still liable.

54
Q

What case demonstrates that if D causes V to act in a reasonably foreseeable way, then any injury to the V will be considered to have been caused by D?

A

R v Roberts (1971)

Facts: V jumped out of D’s moving car to escape his sexual advances-D convicted under s47 OAPA 1861.

55
Q

R v Roberts (1971)

What does this case demonstrate regarding causation?

A

Demonstrates: that if D causes V to act in a reasonably foreseeable way and V gets injured-then D is cause of that injury.

Facts: V jumped out of D’s moving car to escape his sexual advances-D convicted under s47 OAPA 1861.

56
Q

What case demonstrates that if V acts unreasonably to D’s actions and injures themselves then this may break the chain of causation?

A

R v Williams and Davis (1992)

Facts: V hitchhiked a ride in D’s car and D’s tried to take his wallet. V jumped out of the moving car and hit his head and died-the chain of causation was broken as V’s reaction was not proportionate to the threat.

57
Q

R v Williams and Davis (1992)

What does this case demonstrate regarding causation?

A

Demonstrates: that if V’s reaction to D’s threat is disproportionate, then this may break the chain of causation.

Facts: V hitchhiked a ride in D’s car and D’s tried to take his wallet. V jumped out of the moving car and hit his head and died-the chain of causation was broken as V’s reaction was not proportionate to the threat.

58
Q

What is the flowchart on the rules of causation?

A

1) Was D’s conduct the factual cause of the consequence?
No?-not guilty
Yes:

2) Was D’s conduct more than a minimal cause of the consequence?
No?-not guilty
Yes:

3) Did an intervening act break the chain of causation?
Yes?-not guilty
No:

4) D legally and factually has caused consequence and will be guilty if he has the required mens rea.

59
Q

What case is an example of a V neglecting the injuries inflicted by D and essentially committing suicide and D still being liable?

A

R v Dear (1996)

Facts: D slashed V several times with a Stanley knife-V purposely did not attend to the wounds and died-D still liable.

60
Q

R v Dear (1996)

What does this case demonstrate regarding causation?

A

Demonstrates: that even if V does nothing to attend to their injuries D can still be liable.

Facts: D slashed V several times with a Stanley knife-V purposely did not attend to the wounds and died-D still liable.

Year 1 A level Law AQA Textbook (22 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions