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).
Intervening Act: R v Harvey
A defendant must take the victim as they find them, so if the victim has a particular characteristic which makes the effect of the crime worse then this is the defendant’s bad luck (e.g. a defendant threw a TV remote at his wife and she died because she had a rare condition).
Intervening Act: R v Blaue
Characteristics can include religion (e.g. a victim refuses a blood transfusion due to their religion and dies, the causal link is not broken).
Intervening Act: R v Corbett
If a victim acts in a way that which might be reasonably anticipated from any victim in the given situation, there will be no new intervening act and the defendant will be responsible for the consequences (e.g. a man his killed by a car after trying to get away from their attacker (manslaughter)).
Intervening Act: R v Williams
If a victim acts in a way that is not reasonable in the given situation the defendant is not responsible for the consequences.
Intervening Act: Act of God
An act of God is a natural event so powerful that the conduct of the defendant was not the cause at all, but was merely a part of the surrounding circumstances (e.g. a man assaults another man who is lying on the floor but then hit by lightening and killed).
Intervening Act: Alphacell Ltd. v Woodward
Routine hazards, such as rain, do not amount to intervening acts of God.
Principals and Accessories: Aiding
Giving help, support or assistance.
Principals and Accessories: Abetting
Inciting, instigating or encouraging.
Principals and Accessories: Counselling
Advising or instructing.
Principals and Accessories: Procuring
Bringing about. Causal link required.
Principals and Accessories: R v Coney
Failing to prevent a crime does not make someone an accessory.
Principals and Accessories: R v Bryce
Assistance by an accessory where the accessory is not present during the commission of the offence: must be intentional and assist in the offence.
Principals and Accessories: R v Calhaem
Counselling of an offence requires no causal link.
Principals and Accessories: Hui Chiming v The Queen
If the principal cannot be traced, the accessory may still be liable.
Principals and Accessories: Rubie v Faulkner
If the accessory had some responsibility and the actual ability to control the actions of the principal and fail to do so they may be liable (e.g. driving instructor failing to prevent student driving carelessly).
Principals and Accessories: R v Becerra
For an accessory to withdraw from the commission of an offence they must carryout a countermanding act. Repentance for the crime is not a defence.
Principals and Accessories: R v Tyrell
A person whom the law is intended to protect from certain offences cannot be the accessory if the offence is committed against them (e.g. a 15 year old cannot be prosecuted for having sex with an adult).
Men’s Rea for Accessories: National Coal Board v Gamble
State of mind required to convict an accessory: proof of intention to aid as well as knowledge of the circumstances.
Men’s Rea for Accessories: Johnson v Youden
You cannot be an accessory through negligence or recklessness. To be convicted as an accessory the defendant must know the essential matters that constitute that offence.
Joint Enterprise
Two or more people embark on the commission of an offence by one or all of them. All parties have a common goal that the offence is committed.
Parasitic Liability: R v Anderson
In a joint enterprise, if persons 1’s actions are a departure from the nature of the agreed offence then the other person is not liable (e.g. during a theft person 1 gets out a flick knife and causes GBH, the other person did not know about the flick knife).
Parasitic Liability: R v Jogee
Foresight of how the principal may act during the commission of an offence does not prove the accessory had the intention to assist.
Corporate Liability
Companies which are legally incorporated have a legal personality of their own and can commit offences.
Corporate Liability: Tesco Stores Ltd v Brent London Borough Council
Knowledge of certain employees may be extended to the company.
Corporate Liability: R v Robert Miller
There are some offences where companies cannot be the principal but can be an accessory through aiding and abetting (e.g. sexual offences).
Corporate Liability: R v Kite
Companies can be convicted of corporate manslaughter.
Vicarious Liability: National Rivers Authority v Alfred McAlpine Homes
There are occasions when liability can be transferred vicariously to another. Usually this is when a statutory duty is breached by employees whilst at work. Vicarious liability prevents individuals and organisations from evading liability by getting others to carry out unlawful activities on their behalf.