1B.1.1 Actus reus

Question 1

Actus reus

Answer 1

The physical element of a crime.

It can be an act, a failure to act (an omission) or a “state of affairs”.

Question 2

Conduct crime

Answer 2

A conduct crime is where the accused’s conduct forms the offence, and there is no required consequence.

For example:
- The offence of drink-driving is a criminal offence; merely driving with excess alcohol in your bloodstream is the offence. No consequence (such as causing an accident) is required.

Question 3

Consequence crime

Answer 3

For a consequence crime, the consequence element must happen for the offence to be committed.

A consequence crime requires proof that the defendant’s actus reus (the assault) caused the prohibited consequence (the actual bodily harm).

For example:
- In the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (s47 OAPA 1861) there must be an assault but there must also be a consequence of actual bodily harm.

Question 4

Voluntary acts

Answer 4

The act or omission must be voluntary on the part of the defendant. If the defendant has no control over his or her actions, then he or she has not committed the actus reus. This was explained in Hill v Baxter (1958).

Question 5

Hill v Baxter (1958)

Answer 5

Court gave examples of where a driver is doing the act of driving involuntarily such as losing control of the vehicle while being stung by a swarm of bees, being struck on the head by a stone or having a heart attack while driving.

Question 6

State of affairs

Answer 6

There are some instances in which the defendant has been convicted even though the act was not desired by the defendant, but occurred through actions against his will. These situations involve what are known as state of affairs cases, such as R v Larsonneur (1933).

Question 7

R v Larsonneur (1933)

Answer 7

D was ordered to leave the UK, so went to Ireland. Upon landing in Ireland, she was immediately deported and sent back to the UK (involuntarily). When she landed in the UK, she was convicted because she had been refused ‘leave to land in the UK’ and was ‘found in the UK’. It did not matter that she had been brought back by the Irish police against her will.

Question 8

What is an omission?

Answer 8

A failure to do something – doing nothing where a reasonable person would, or where there is a legal duty to act.

Question 9

Six ways in which a duty can exist

Answer 9

1) Statutory duty
2) Contractual duty
3) A duty of a relationship
4) A duty which has been taken on voluntarily
5) A duty though one’s official position
6) A duty which arises because the defendant has set in motion a chain of events.

Question 10

Omission as the actus reus

Answer 10

An omission can only be the actus reus if there was a duty to act, and the defendant breached that duty.

Question 11

R v Miller (1983)

Answer 11

Homeless man in barn fell asleep whilst smoking, set fire to the mattress and so simply went to sleep in other room. Guilty of arson and criminal damage. House of Lords ruled defendants who created the risk would be expected to take reasonable steps but would not be expected to put themselves at risk. Held: An omission is only sufficient for the actus reus where there is a duty to act.

Question 12

[Omission as the actus reus]

A statutory duty

Answer 12

An Act of Parliament can create liability for an omission.

For example; Road Offences such as failing to stop/report a road traffic accident (s170 of the Road Traffic Accident 1988). Failing to provide a specimen of breath (s6 of the Road Traffic Act 1988).

Question 13

[Omission as the actus reus]

A contractual duty

Answer 13

A duty can be established in a contact.

For example, a lifeguard at a pool leaves his post unattended, if a swimmer were injured or drowned, the lifeguard could be found liable because he failed to do his contractual duty.

Case: Pittwood (1902)

Question 14

[Omission as the actus reus]

A duty because of a relationship

Answer 14

A duty can be established due to a relationship. For example, a parent/guardian/carer and a child.

Case: Gibbins and Proctor

Question 15

[Omission as the actus reus]

A duty which has been undertaken voluntarily

Answer 15

A duty can be established where an individual undertakes a task voluntarily, and then stops doing the task.

Cases: Stone and Dobinson, Evans

Question 16

[Omission as the actus reus]

A duty through one’s official position

Answer 16

An official position can give rise to a duty to act, and a failure to act can then become the actus reus of the crime.

Case: Dytham

Question 17

[Omission as the actus reus]

Chain of events

Answer 17

A chain of events can give rise to a duty to act, and a failure to act can then become the actus reus of the crime.

Case: Santa-Bermudez

Question 18

Santa-Bermudez (2003)

Answer 18

Police Officer doing a stop and search asked D if there were any sharp objects in his pockets. He replied no. She put hands in pockets and was injured by a needle. Guilty of Assault Occasioning ABH. Failed to tell police so chain of events.

Question 19

R v Dytham (1979)

Answer 19

Police officer watched two men kick victim to death. Went home and didn’t report or intervene. Ds guilty of wilfully and without reasonable excuse neglecting to perform his duty.

Question 20

Evans (2009)

Answer 20

Ds allowed victim to die. Both convicted of GNM. Mother: Duty as parent, relationship plus statutory. Sister: Chain of events, she gave the victim the heroin.

Question 21

R v Stone and Dobinson (1977)

Answer 21

Stone’s elderly sister, Fanny, came to live with him and Dobinson (his mistress). Fanny stayed in her room for several days and failed to eat. Ds allowed the victim to die, both found guilty of manslaughter. Stone was guilty because of the duty of relationship to sister, and Dobinson had the duty as she voluntarily provided some care previously.

Question 22

R v Gibbins and Proctor

Answer 22

Father & mistress of a 7-year-old girl deliberately starved her to death. The omission/failure to feed her was deliberate with the intention of killing or causing serious harm to her. Held: The failure to feed (omission) was enough for the AR or Murder.

Question 23

R v Pittwood (1902)

Answer 23

A railway crossing keeper omitted to shut the gates, with the result that a person crossing the line was struck and skilled by a train. The keeper was found guilty of manslaughter, because of his failure to close the gate.

Question 24

Involuntary acts as actus reus

Answer 24

The concept of an involuntary act can be seen where someone suffers an epileptic fit.

Whether this excuses liability depends on the defence of automatism.

Question 25

What is causation?

Answer 25

Where a consequence must be proved.

The Prosecution must show that:

• The defendant’s conduct was the factual cause of that consequence.
• It was the legal cause of the consequence.
• There was no intervening act which broke the chain of causation.

Question 26

Factual cause

Answer 26

The defendant can only be guilty if the consequence would not have happened “but for” the defendant’s conduct.
The “but for” test was established in R v Pagett (1983).

Question 27

R v Pagett (1983)

Answer 27

D used his pregnant girlfriend as a shield while he shot at an armed policeman. The police fired back and the girlfriend was killed. Pagett was convicted of new manslaughter. She would not have died ‘but for’ him using her as a shield in the shoot-out.

Question 28

White (1910)

Answer 28

D put cyanide in his mother’s drink, intending to kill her. She died of a heart attack before she could drink it. The defendant was not the factual cause of her death; he was not guilty of murder, though he was guilty of attempted murder.

Question 29

What is considered when determining legal causation?

Answer 29

• The ‘thin skull rule’
• The chain of causation

Question 30

The ‘thin skull rule’

Answer 30

The defendant must take the victim as he finds him.

If the victim has something unusual about their physical or mental state which makes an injury more serious, then the D is liable for the more serious injury.

Case: Blaue (1975)

Question 31

R v Blaue (1975)

Answer 31

A young woman was stabbed by the defendant. She was told that she would need a blood transfusion to save her life but she refused as she was a Jehovah’s Witness and her religion forbade blood transfusions. She died and the D was convicted of her murder. Despite the fact that her religious belief made the wound fatal, the D was still guilty because he had to take his victim as he found her.

Question 32

The chain of causation

Answer 32

The link between the act and the consequence is known as the chain of causation – this must remain unbroken if there is to be criminal liability.

Question 33

What can break the chain of causation?

Answer 33

The chain of causation can be broken by:
- An act of a third party
- The victim’s own act
- A natural but unpredictable event

In order to break the chain of causation so that the D is not responsible for the consequence, the intervening act must be both sufficiently independent of the D’s conduct and sufficiently serious enough.

Question 34

Multiple causes

Answer 34

There may be more than one act contributing to the consequence. Some of these acts may be made by people other than the defendant.

The rule is that the defendant can be guilty if his conduct was more than a ‘minimal’ cause of the consequence - the defendant’s conduct need not be a substantial cause.

Case: R v Kimsey

In R v Kimsey, it was held there must be ‘more than a slight or trifling link’.

Question 35

R v Kimsey (1996)

Answer 35

D was involved in a high-speed car chase with a friend. She lost control of her car and the other driver was killed in the crash. The evidence about what happened immediately before D lost control was not very clear. The trial judge directed the jury that D’s driving did not have to be ‘the principal, or a substantial cause of the death, as long as you are sure that it was a cause and that there something more than a slight or trifling link’. The Court of Appeal upheld D’s conviction for causing death by dangerous driving.

Question 36

An act of a third party: medical treatment

Answer 36

There are a number of cases where it was asked whether poor medical treatment was the operating or substantial cause of the injuries.

Medical treatment 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.

This is shown in R v Smith (1959), R v Cheshire (1991) and R v Jordan (1956).

Question 37

R v Smith

Answer 37

Two soldiers had a fight. D stabbed the victim in the lung. V was carried to a medical centre by other soldiers but was dropped on the way. Medical staff gave him artificial respiration by pressing on his chest but this made the injury worse & he died. The act by the medical staff affected his chances of recovery by 75% approx. Held: D guilty of murder because the intervening act was not sufficient to break the chain.

Question 38

R v Jordan

Answer 38

V was stabbed in the stomach. He was treated in hospital and the wounds were healing well. He was given an antibiotic but suffered an allergic reaction to it. The victim died from the allergic reaction to the drug. In this case, the actions of the doctor were held to be an intervening act which caused the death. The defendant was not guilty of murder because the stab wound was not the significant cause of death.

Question 39

R v Malcherek (1981)

Answer 39

Switching off a life-support machine by a doctor when it has been decided that the victim is brain-dead does not break the chain of causation.

Question 40

Breaking the chain of causation: an unreasonable reaction

Answer 40

However, if the victim’s reaction is unreasonable, the chain of causation may be broken.

R v Williams and Davis (1992): The Court of Appeal ruled that the victim’s act had to be foreseeable and in proportion to the treat.

Question 41

Victim’s own act breaks the chain of causation

Answer 41

If the defendant causes the victim to react in a foreseeable way, then any injury to victim will be considered to have been caused by the defendant.

As seen in the cases:
* R v Roberts (1971)
* R v Marjoram (2000)
* Kennedy (2007)
* Dalby (1982)

Question 42

R v Roberts (1971)

Answer 42

A girl jumped from a car (travelling at 20-40mph) in order to escape from Robert’s sexual advances. The girl was injured by jumping from it. D was held liable for her injuries.

Question 43

R v Marjoram (2000)

Answer 43

Several people, including the defendant, shouted abuse & kicked the door of V’s hostel room. V then fell/jumped from the window of the room & suffered serious injuries. Held: It was reasonably foreseeable that the victim would fear that the group was going to use violence against him and that the only escape route was the window. D was convicted of inflicting GBH and this was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

Question 44

Kennedy (2007)

Answer 44

D had prepared an injection of heroin and water for the victim to inject himself. Victim self-injected and subsequently died. Held: the victim injecting the heroin himself was an intervening act, which broke any chain of causation.

Question 45

Dalby (1982)

Answer 45

D supplied a drug which the victim self-injected & subsequently died. D’s conviction for manslaughter was quashed by the Court of Appeal. Held: Supplying the drug was an unlawful act but it was not the supplying that caused the death. The injection itself was the cause of the death and the chain of causation had been broken as this was a voluntary act by the victim.