Actus Rea Flashcards
Voluntary Act
You must show a defendant acted voluntarily.
Automatism: Hill v Barker
If defendant has total loss of control of their actions, they cannot be held liable for those actions and there may be grounds to claim a defence of automatism (e.g. bees fly into the car causing the driver to have an accident).
Link to Mens Rea: R v Jakemen
Mens rea does not have to remain the same throughout the commission of an offence (e.g. poisoning someone and then changing your mind immediately after).
Link to Mens Rea: Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
An act can begin without any mens rea but the mens rea may be formed during the act, once the mens rea is formed the offence is complete (e.g. accidentally driving onto someone’s foot and then deciding not to move your vehicle).
Omissions
Ordinarily there is no liability for failing to act, unless the person meets the DUTY criteria
Omissions: D of Duty/R v Miller
Dangerous situation created by the defendant (e.g. person fell asleep smoking and woke up to their mattress on fire but instead of trying to put the fire out or get help they just moved to another room).
Omissions: U of DUTY
Under statute, contract or public office.
Omission: R v Pittwood
A person under contract fails to act (e.g. a crossing keeper failed to close the gates at a level crossing and someone died subsequently).
Omissions: R v Dytham
A person in public office fails to act (e.g. a police officer witnessed a man get beat to death outside a nightclub and went home without telling anyone).
Omissions: T of Duty/R v Stone
Taken upon themselves, when the defendant voluntarily decides to care for another and then fails to care for that person (e.g. a person accepted duty of care for their partner’s mentally ill sister who subsequently died from neglect).
Omissions: Y of DUTY
Defendant has parental obligations to look after a child and they do not fulfil their obligations.
Causal Link: R v McKechnie
Once the actus rea has been proved, you must then show a causal link between it and the consequences (e.g. a defendant attacked a victim who was already suffering from a brain ulcer, the assault prevented doctors from operating on the ulcer and the victim died (manslaughter upheld)).
Causal Link: R v Bryce
A delay can occur between the act and consequences (e.g. a defendant dropped off an accomplice at a victim’s house who they had planned to kill, the accomplice did not shoot the victim until 13 hours after being dropped off but the defendant did not intervene).
Intervening Act: R v Latif
The causal link can be broken by a new intervening act as long as the new act is free, deliberate and informed.
Intervening Act: R v Kennedy
A drug dealer who supplies drugs to someone who then overdoses on the drugs and dies cannot be said to have caused the death. Death would be brought about by the deliberate exercise of free will by the user.
Intervening Act: R v Smith
It is foreseeable that medical treatment may not be carried out correctly, therefore is hardly acknowledged as an intervening act (e.g. a solider stabs someone with a bayonet and then takes them to hospital, the doctor does not notice the victims lung is pierced and does not administer appropriate treatment and the victim dies).
Intervening Act: R v Jordan
In some cases, improper medical treatment causing death instead of the original attack can be a defence (e.g. the defendant stabbed a man who was taken to hospital, the man recovered from his stab wounds but died in hospital after been given the wrong medication).
