Actus reas and Mens Reas Flashcards
what are the three elements to a crime?
External element, legally blameworthy state of mind and lack of defence
what is the definition of actus reus?
The definition of Actus Reus varies with the crime. Classified as a conduct or result crime. Conduct means conduct alone (Possession, perjury) and result is where there are certain necessary consequences
what is an omission and the 2 types
An omission is a failure to act. 2 types: Pure omission and commission by omission
Egg shell skull rule - R v Blaue
Those who use violence take the victim as you find them. Here she refused treatment due to her religious beliefs. This did not break the chain. Stab wound was the cause of death and no requirement for her belief to be reasonable
Acts of the victim and chain of causation - R v Roberts
in the case of R v Roberts an objective test was used. Was it the natural result of something that alleged assailant did, in the sense that it was something that was reasonably foreseeable consequence. Only breaks where it was so daft that no one could foresee it
Describe a duty from relationship using cases (omission)
In the case of R v Gibson & Proctor, Man and wife failed to feed his starving son who died. Duty of care for the child led to liability . self-evident for parent and wife lived there so she assumed responsibility. Must involve neglect of legal duty rather than moral
in the case of R v Hood - Man was found guilty of manslaughter of his wife due to neglect as he was her carer despite other factors
describe assumption of responsibility (omission) - R v Stone
In the case of R v Stone and dobinson The defendants, S and D, were a couple who took in the victim, S’s sister, as a lodger. The assumed responsibility. She was anorexic and was left to die in bed with no clean clothes etc. developed bed sores and was incapable of looking after herself. They had fed her at times so assumed responsibility. As such the omission was actus reus. Must be proven indifferent to the risk or else saw risk and ignored it
describe contractual duty (omission) - Brown v Pittwood
In the case of Brown v Pitwood, The defendant was employed by a railway company to operate the gate at a level crossing across the track. He lifted the gate to allow a cart to pass across, but then failed to put it back down before going for his lunch break. During his absence, a horse and cart crossed the track through the open gate, and was hit by a passing train.
Describe a creation of danger (omission) - R v Miller
In the case of R v Miller, the defendant fell asleep smoking. Woke up and mattress was on fire but didn’t put it out. Moved to another room and this was enough for actus reus for arson as he failed to take steps to stop it
Duty as a public offer (omission) - R v Dytham
In the case of R v Dytham - A uniformed police officer saw a man who was being kicked to death. He took no steps to intervene and drove away when it was over. He was convicted of the common law offence of misconduct in a public office as he had neglected to act to protect the victim or apprehend the victim.
The general rule that an actus reus cannot comprise or include an omission is subject to which two exceptions:
- Where the Actus Reus is Defined by Law as Comprising or Including an Omission
- Where an Omission Constitutes a Breach of a Legal Duty to Act in a Particular Manner:
what is the miller principle
If X creates a danger even accidentally (ii) and afterwards becomes aware of it, (iii) he is under a duty to act to prevent the danger from materialising.
co-incidence
The actus reus and mens rea must co-incide in terms of time. This does not men they must come out at exactly the same time but they must be present together at some point
Causation and actus reus
it is necessary for the state in a criminal case to show that the conduct prescribed actually caused the result effected and not some other factor.
It may happen however that the “but for” test applied in tort would be satisfied but there is not enough evidence to support a legal finding of causation on the criminal standard
what are the facts of R v cheshire?
The accused shot a man, wounding him seriously causing him to be admitted to intensive care. There was an unsual complication in his treatment which caused obstruction in this windpipe and he died. The accused’s conviction for murder was upheld, even though it was shown that the bullet wounds no longer threatened the victim’s life at the time of death and the death was caused by negligent medical treatment.
