actus reus Flashcards
What is actus reus?
The physical element or the prohibited conduct of a crime. It can be a positive act, omission or state of affairs, Must be voluntary.
What is said in hill v baxter 1958?
Court gave examples of where a driver of a vehicle could not be doing the act of driving voluntarily: lost control of a vehicle because he was stung by a swarm of bees, or if he was struck of the head by a stone, had a heart attack while driving.
What case shows that a person who pushes a second causing them to crash into someone. Even tho hit the third person 2nd hasn’t committed actus reus?
R v Mitchell 1983
What case shows a defendant being convicted s even tho they didn’t act voluntarily?
R v Larsonneur 1933
An omission is only sufficient for the actus reus where there is a duty to act, what ways in which such a duty can exist?
- a statutory duty
- a contractual duty
- a duty because of a relationship
- a duty which has been taken on voluntarily
- a duty through ones official position
- a duty which arises because the defendant has set in a motion a chain of events
Name an example a statutory duty created
s170 of the road traffic act 1988 failing to stop or report a road traffic accident
Name a case that deals with a contractual duty
R v Pittwood 1902
railway crossing keeper didn’t shut the gates and it killed someone
Name a case that deals with a duty because of a relationship
R v Gibbons and Proctor 1918
Father and his partner deliberately starved his daughter to death. parent child duty
Name two cases that show a duty which has been undertaken voluntarily
- R v Stone and Dobinson 1977 failed their duty to help her or summon help
- R v Evans d ought to have known have known that what she created was life threatening and therefore owe a duty of care
Name a case that involves a duty through ones official position
R v Dytham 1979
Police officer on duty took no steps to intervene in a fight
Name a case where a duty arises because the defendant set in a motion a chain of events
R v Miller 1983
Didn’t take reasonable steps to deal with a fire that he discovered
What does airedale nhs trust v bland 1993 show?
That if discontinuance of treatment is in the best interests of the patient then it is not an omission which can form actus reus.
What was shown in R v Khan and Khan 1998?
The court of appeal thought there could be a duty to summon medical assistance in certain circumstances, so that a defendant could be liable for failing to do so.
How can you test factual causation?
The ‘but for test’ from white 1910
What makes up legal causation?
- operative
- substantial
What is the operative cause?
- D is not necessarily the sole or main cause but ‘a’ cause.
- Pagett 1983
What is the substantial cause?
- More than a slight or trifling link in the sense that … in the sense that it is not de minimis
- R v Hughes 2013
What happens if there may be more than one person who contributed?
- The defendant can be guilty even though their conduct was not the only cause of the death
- In Kimsey both drivers were driving at high speed, but Kimsey could be found guilty
What is the thin skull rule?
- The defendant must take the victim as she/he finds their victim.
- This means that if the victim has something unusual about their physical or mental state which makes an injury more serious injury, then the defendant is liable for a more serious injury.
What case is an example of the thin skull rule?
R v Blaue 1975
She died as she refused a blood transfusion due to being a Jehovah’s Witness
Explain the chain of causation and linked to intervening acts
- must be a direct link from the defendant’s conduct to the consequence
- in some situations something happens after the defendants act or omission and if this is sufficiently separate from the defendants conduct it may break the chain of causation.
The chain of causation can be broken by:
- an act of a third party
- the victims own act
- a natural but unpredictable event
In order to break the chain of causation for the defendant to not be liable what needs to happen?
The intervening act must be sufficiently independent of the defendants conduct and sufficiently serious.
