1B - Introduction to Criminal Liability and Actus Reus

Question 1

Where does our law come from?

Answer 1

• Statutory Law (created by parliament and the gov)

- Case Law (created by judges using precedent)

Question 2

What is the definition of criminal offences

Answer 2

Criminal offences are perceived to be harmful to the state and the only appropriate way to deal with such offences is through punishment

Question 3

What does the case syntax - R v (surname) mean

Answer 3

R indicates that case is brought by the Crown or State

Question 4

What does the case syntax - DPP v (surname) mean

Answer 4

Serious case or involves an important point of law. The Director of Public prosecution has brought the case

Question 5

What does the case syntax - AG Reference Case (Number… and the year heard) mean

Answer 5

A point of law which requires clarification by the CA or Supreme Court. D may have been acquitted and the Attorney General (government solicitor) is asking the courts to check whether the trial judges interpretation is correct – ie is the ratio correct (the acquittal would still stand).
This will enable later courts to apply the correct ruling.

Question 6

What does the case syntax - B v DPP mean

Answer 6

Case is regarded as too sensitive for the defendants surname to be included – usually involves children

Question 7

Burden of proof definition

Answer 7

Who must prove the case

Question 8

Burden of proof - criminal cases

Answer 8

Guilt must be established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt

Question 9

Burden of proof - civil cases

Answer 9

Liability is determined on the balance of probability (standard of proof)

Question 10

What is a crime

Answer 10

An act that is forbidden by the state for which there is punishment

Question 11

Elements of a crime

Answer 11

(1) actus reus - a prohibited action- the guilty act
(2) mens rea - a guilty mind
actus reus + mens rea = offence

Question 12

Strict liability offences

Answer 12

The mens rea is not needed. The actus reus is sufficient

Question 13

Actus reus - physical element of a crime

Answer 13

1. conduct - act or omission
2. consequence/result
3. circumstance/state of affairs

Question 14

Actus reus - physical element of a crime - conduct

Answer 14

The act or omission itself forms the actus reus. It does not matter is it results in an outcome. Eg. a person lying under oath has the actus reus for perjury - it does not matter if the lie is believed or not

Question 15

Actus reus - physical element of a crime - consequence/result

Answer 15

Some crimes require the actus reus to have a result or a consequence. Eg. murder/manslaughter - the D act or failure to act must have caused the death

Question 16

Actus reus - physical element of a crime - circumstances

Answer 16

For ‘state of affairs’ crimes the actus reus consists of ‘being’ rather than ‘doing’. The offence is committed because of a state of affairs for which they are responsible - rare

Question 17

Actus reus - physical element of a crime - voluntary

Answer 17

The act or omission must be voluntary on behalf of the defendant. If the D has no control over his actions/omissions then no offence has been committed

Question 18

Omission as actus reus

Answer 18

An omission cannot make a person guilty of an offence ie we are not usually criminally liable for doing nothing. In the UK there is no good samaritan law

Question 19

Doctor’s duties

Answer 19

A person is generally not guilty for failing to act, but there are exceptions (both under statute and common law). An omission is only sufficient for the actus reus where there is a duty to act and there are 6 ways in which a duty can exist

Question 20

Duty to act - give 2 examples of a statutory duty

Answer 20

• S (1) Children’s and Person’s act 1933 - duty to feed etc

- Failing to stop/report a road traffic accident - Road Traffic Act 1988

Question 21

Duty to act - a contractual duty

Answer 21

R v Pittwood

Question 22

Duty to act - a duty because of a relationship

Answer 22

R v Gibbins and Proctor

Question 23

Duty to act - a duty which has been taken voluntarily

Answer 23

R v Stone and Dobinson

Question 24

Duty to act - a duty through ones official position

Answer 24

R v Dytham

Question 25

Duty to act - a duty because the defendant is set in motion of a chain of events

Answer 25

R v Miller

Question 26

For result crimes:

Answer 26

• Act or omission (actus reus) must have caused the consequence. Eg. for GBH the act of the D (punching the V) must have caused the serious injury (V suffered 3 broken ribs)
• Prosecution must prove that (1) D’s conduct was the factual case of that consequence (look here first) (2) D’s conduct was the legal case of the consequence (3) there were no intervening acts that broke the chain of causation

Question 27

Factual causation

Answer 27

The D can only be found guilty if the consequence would not have happened ‘but for’ the D’s conduct. For factual causation the prosecution will use the but for test to prove the D was the factual cause. But for the D’s actions the V would not have suffered the consequence
***R v Pagett

Question 28

Legal causation

Answer 28

Starts with the de minimis principle from the key case of ***R v Kimsey and was confirmed in R v Hughes that says the D does not have to the only cause of the consequence suffered by the victim (eg. injuries or death) but they must be more than a minimal cause

Question 29

Legal causation - multiple causes

Answer 29

There may be more than one act contributing to the consequence. Some of these acts may be carried out by other people than the defendant. D can be found guilty if his conduct was more than a ‘minimal’ or ‘slight or trifling link’ to the consequence. R v Kimsey

Question 30

Intervening acts

Answer 30

There must be a direct link from the defendant’s conduct to the consequence. This is known as the chain of causation. They play a role in legal causation as they may break the chain of causation and if so the D will not be the significant cause

Question 31

The chain of causation can be broken by

Answer 31

1. an act of a third party
2. victims own act
3. an unforeseeable event (not expected to know)
   If there is a novus actus interveniens (new intervening act) the chain of causation may be broken

Question 32

What happens if an intervening act is reasonably foreseeable?

Answer 32

It will not break the chain of causation.

Question 33

Intervening acts - medical treatment

Answer 33

This is unlikely to break the chain of causation unless it is so independent of the D’s acts and in itself so potent in causing death that the D’s acts are insignificant. The original injury must still be an ‘operative and substantial cause’

Question 34

Intervening acts - medical treatment - D is still the cause

Answer 34

R v Cheshire or R v Smith

Question 35

Intervening acts - medical treatment - D is not the cause

Answer 35

R v Jordan

Question 36

Intervening acts - medical treatment - life support

Answer 36

Switching off a life support machine by a doctor was it has ben decided that the victim is brain dead doesn’t break the chain of causation and therefore the D should be convicted
R v Malcherek

Question 37

Intervening acts - V’s own actions

Answer 37

Key test developed in R v Roberts said that if the actions of the victim are reasonable then they will not break the chain of causation

Question 38

Intervening acts - Thin skull rule

Answer 38

R v Blaue
The D must take the V as he finds them. This means that if the V has a special characteristic that makes the harm worse then the V is still guilty for the worse harm.