Actus Reus

Question 1

4 forms of Conduct?

Answer 1

Action, Omission, State of Affairs, Surrounding Circumstance

Question 2

What is an action (3 Types)

Answer 2

1. A voluntary act
2. An involuntary act
3. A voluntary act followed by an involuntary act.

Question 3

Definition of a voluntary act?

Answer 3

A positive physical act that is willed. Arises even if the consequences are not planned.

Question 4

2 examples of an involuntary act (2 types)

Answer 4

1: Impaired consciousness

2. Loss of physical control (something or someone influences).

Question 5

What case and court explains why involuntary acts aren’t culpable?

Answer 5

M v R in the court of appeal- “conduct is generally considered criminal only if it is voluntary.

Question 6

Case of voluntary action followed by an Involuntary action? What were the actions?

Answer 6

Jiminez- driving whilst tired (voluntary action) causes to fall asleep and crash (involuntary action).

Question 7

What is the golden rule with Omissions?

Answer 7

Criminal liability exists in relation to positive actions only, we value living in a society where legal duties don’t impede on our liberty.

Question 8

What are the 3 exceptions to the golden rule of Omissions?

Answer 8

1. Omission only offences
2. Where a legal duty arises due to a persons actions (creation of a duty of care)
3. Where their is a legal duty to act (duty of care written in statute).

Question 9

What is the main example of an omission only offence?

Answer 9

Failing to fill out a census

Question 10

What is the main case example of where a legal duty is created due to a persons actions?

Answer 10

R v Miller

Question 11

What is the ratio of R v Miller? What did the House or Lords say (individuals must take measures…) and the facts of the case?

Answer 11

The house of lords ruled that “an individual must take measures that lie within ones powers to counteract a danger that one has oneself created”. D smoked a cigarette and fell asleep, woke up to his mattress on fire, moved rooms to sleep. Woke up to the house on fire and did nothing. D charged with arson due to this law.

Question 12

When does a person have a legal duty to act if they did not ‘create the duty’?

Answer 12

When the Legal duties are written in statue.

Question 13

What is the good case for the elements of legal duties?

Answer 13

DDP v Poniatowska

Question 14

Ratio in Poniatowska (3 points)

Answer 14

3 points to be proven to show D omitted their duty:

1. Is there a duty
2. How did it arise
3. Does D’s inaction fall within the scope of the legal duty.

Question 15

What is a State of Affairs offence?

Answer 15

Where no action or omission is needed: it is enough that the state of affairs exist.

Question 16

Main example of a State of Affairs offence?

Answer 16

S57CA- Dog attacks a person or animal. “no requirement of action or omission, state of affairs is that you own the dog.

Question 17

Definition of Surrounding Circumstance offence?

Answer 17

The existence of particular circumstances that can transform an otherwise lawful act into a crime.

Question 18

Example of Surrounding Circumstance case?

Answer 18

Absence of license or bigamy.

Question 19

How do you easily identify whether causation needs to be established in a case?

Answer 19

In the language of the offence- looking for words such as ‘because, since, cause, as a result.

Question 20

What were the 2 elements the prosecution were meant to prove before R v Hughes?

Answer 20

1. That the consequences occurred and;

2. That the consequences occurred because of the defendants actions.

Question 21

How did prosecutors prove causation prior to Hughes?

Answer 21

Using the BUT FOR test (sine qua non).

Question 22

What is the basis of the BUT FOR test (sine qua non)

Answer 22

A causes B to happen if B would have not have happened BUT FOR A’s action.

Question 23

What case established the difference between Factual and Legal Causation?

Answer 23

R v Hughes

Question 24

What was the ratio of R v Hughes (what was he found guilty of and what court read the verdict and what was the verdict?

Answer 24

D was found guilty on merit by the BUT FOR test. However he was completely not at fault. The UK supreme court set out the difference between factual and legal causation. Factual causation was deemed important but not imperative for liability.

Question 25

What does Legal Causation require?

Answer 25

1. A level of fault

2. That the conduct be a significant or salient contributor to the consequence- not necessarily the only contributor.

Question 26

What level of fault is required for causation? (Hughes)

Answer 26

Contributing in some more than minimal way to the offence.

Question 27

Commentary of R v Kennedy for causation (Hughes)

Answer 27

That the offenders conduct need only to be significant.

Question 28

What is a Novus Actus Interveniens?

Answer 28

An action or event that intervenes to breaks the chain of causation from the D to the eventual harm.

Question 29

What happeneds to a defendant when a Novus Actus Interveniens is present?

Answer 29

The defendants behavior ceases to be a significant and operating cause.

Question 30

What case describes the nature of Novus Actus Interveniens nicely and what does it say?

Answer 30

R v Smith [Lord Parker] “if the second event is so overwhelming as to make the original wound (action) MERELY PART OF THE HISTORY, it can be said that death does not from the wound”.

Question 31

What are the 3 main ways a Novus Actus interveniens occurs?

Answer 31

1. Natural events
2. Other persons
3. The victim

Question 32

For Novus Actus interveniens that are Natural events, what are the three factors that do not break the chain of causation?

Answer 32

1. If the subsequent event is reasonably foreseeable
2. If the subsequent event is the sort of risk that is created or increased by D’s initial actions
3. In determining 1 and 2, the eggshell doctrine applies.

Question 33

Case for reasonably foreseeable natural events?

Answer 33

R v Hart

Question 34

Facts of R v Hart?

Answer 34

D placed injured V below tide line, V swept away. D remained liable. Would be a Novus Actus interveniens if above the tide line and therefore not foreseeable

Question 35

Cases discussing whether D remains liable if the subsequent natural event is the sort of risk that is created or increased by D’s initial actions?

Answer 35

1. Forrest

2. Commonwealth

Question 36

Forrest’s ratio?

Answer 36

D stabbed V. The wound increased V’s risk of infection causing death. D is liable because stab increased V’s vulnerability to a disease.

Question 37

Commonwealth’s ratio?

Answer 37

The wound inflicted by D did not increase or create the harm V suffered from the infection. Thus the infection was Novus Actus to the stab.

Question 38

In determining Novus Actus intervenient for natural events that are foreseeable or that are a risk that is created or increase by D’s actions, what applies?

Answer 38

The egg shell doctrine applies. You take the victim as you find them.

Question 39

Case for Egg shell doctrine?

Answer 39

R v Master- D stabs V, aggravates existing condition, V dies, it was viewed as a non-intervening act.

Question 40

For Novus Actus interveniens that involve other persons, what are the two factors that do not break the change of causation?

Answer 40

1. If the actions of the other person are reasonably foreseeable
2. If the actions of the other person involve the sort of risk that that is created or increased by D’s initial action.

Question 41

Case for reasonably foreseeable actions of other persons? Ratio?

Answer 41

[Scates]- burned V to near death, S kills V, D acquitted, S’s actions were Novus Actus because D could not foresee it.

Question 42

What case? If the actions of the other person involve the sort if risk that is created or increased by D’s initial actions- D remains liable

Answer 42

[Jordan]- D Stabs V- V treated by Doc A properly, not breaking the chain. V killed by the Doc B’s negligent treatment. Doc B’s treatment was a Novus Actus Interveniens.

Question 43

For Novus Actus interveniens of the victim, what are the two factors that do not break the change of causation?

Answer 43

1. The victims actions were in a reaction to the D’s wrongdoing
2. The victims actions were reasonably foreseeable.

Question 44

Case for when the victims actions are in reaction to the defendants wrongdoing? - D remained liable

Answer 44

[Royall]- V falls out of 6 story building trying to escape from D.. D held liable, falling out the window NOT an interveniens because it was reactionary to D’s violence

Question 45

Case for when the victims actions were reasonably foreseeable?- D remained liable

Answer 45

[Wall]- V takes 800 lashes from D. Drinks alcohol to numb the pain. Dies from alcohol and injuries. D was held liable, the drinking of the alcohol was NOT an interveniens because it was foreseeable that V would drink to avoid injury.