Actus Reus

Question 1

what is the ‘conduct element’? x3

Answer 1

voluntariness

causation

omission

Question 2

what is required to prove an act was ‘involuntary’?

Answer 2

total destruction of voluntary control

Question 3

what is needed in order to establish whether someone was the cause of the action?

Answer 3

factual causation - but for test

legal causation - more than a minimal cause/ chain of causation not broken

Question 4

what might break the chain of causation?

Answer 4

abnormal natural events

third party intervention

medical treatment

Question 5

what is required in order for a third party intervention to be seen to break the chain of causation?

Answer 5

third party’s action must be ‘free, deliberate and informed’
Kennedy (No2) 2007

Question 6

what intervening act will not necessarily break the chain of causation?

Answer 6

the victims reaction to the defendant’s action/omission

Question 7

what are examples of whether a victim’s reaction has not broken the chain of causation?

Answer 7

R v Roberts - victim jumping out of the car after Ds suggestive remarks

Dhaliwal - victim committing suicide after Ds abusive actions

R v Blaue - victim refusing blood transfusion, as a jehovah’s witness, after being stabbed

Question 8

what medical intervention case saw no break in the chain of causation?

Answer 8

R v Cheshire

V was shot by D and died of a tracheotomy that was negligently missed by medical staff

Question 9

what medical intervention case found a break in the chain of causation?

Answer 9

R v Jordan

V was stabbed by D but died 8 days later due to an allergic reaction to antibiotics given to V by the hospital negligently

Question 10

what case highlighted that the use of voluntary euthanasia would not break the chain of causation?
why?

Answer 10

R v Wallace 2018

acts of V were not random, extraneous events or separate to the conduct and actions of D - the action taken by V was found to be inextricably bound up with Ds actions

Question 11

what is there no general duty to do in the UK?

Answer 11

no general duty to prevent harm/ save someone

Question 12

what arguments support the situation of D being liable for an omission to act? x5

Answer 12

statutory duty

contractual duty

third party

continuing to act

creation of a dangerous situation

Question 13

what criminal damage case highlighted criminal liability for an omission?

Answer 13

R v Miller

failure to put out a fire that a man started in his sleep when he dropped a cigarette
both able and liable to act when he woke up

Question 14

what gross negligence manslaughter case highlighted criminal liability for an omission?

Answer 14

R v Evans 2009

half sister found liable for not acting when the victim fell into a coma
Evans had created a life-threatening situation and had not acted to negate the danger
(it was not due to the familiar relations that generated this duty)

Question 15

what case established liability for omissions when responsibility is voluntarily assumed?

Answer 15

R v Gibbins and Proctor 1919

woman, and man, had assumed responsibility for the child as a result of living in a house with it and being supplied with money to pay for it to be fed

Question 16

what case, not involving a parent or child, established omission liability for the voluntary assumption of responsibility?

what issues were overlooked in the case?

Answer 16

R v Stone / R v Dobinson

liable for manslaughter of Stone’s sister when she died of anorexia nervosa

the defendants had learning difficulties and didn’t fully understand the illness - this wasn’t properly considered in the case

Question 17

what are examples of statutory duties to act?

Answer 17

failure to provide a breath sample (Road Traffic Act 1988 s.6)

failure to report money laundering (Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 s.330)

failure to report a suspected act of terrorism (Terrorism Act 2000 s.38B)

Question 18

what is the serious omissions offence under the Terrorism Act 2000 s38B?

Answer 18

the person commits the offence is they aware of info that might prevent the commission of an act of terrorism by securing apprehension, prosecution or conviction of that individual

requirement to disclose of the information asap

defence - if they have reasonable grounds for not disclosing the info

Question 19

what two cases highlight the flexibility of the notion of an ‘act’ or an ‘omission’?

Answer 19

Airdale NHS Trust v Bland 1993 - turning off life support not found to be an act, instead an omission

Fagan v Commissioner of Met Police 1969 - continual act of battery through omission of not removing car tyre off police officer’s foot

Question 20

why was the notion of an ‘act’ manipulated in Airdale NHS Trust v Bland 1993?

Answer 20

to issue a declaration for the hospital to turn off the life support of a victim from the Hillsborough disaster who was in PVS

Question 21

why was the notion of an ‘omission’ manipulated in Fagan v Commissioner of the Met Police 1969?

what was the reasoning

Answer 21

assault cannot be established by an omission to act
court found instead that the continual omission to remove the tyre from the police officers foot was a continuation of battery from when the tyre first went on Vs foot

imposition of MR through the reluctance to remove the wheel and the aggression towards V by D
reasonable person would have recognised need for removal - this suggests intention

Question 22

what other omission liability case did the Fagan case influence?

what was the reason for liability?

Answer 22

DPP v Santana-Bermudez 2003

continuation of having needles in pockets
‘dishonest assurance about the contents of his pockets, thereby exposed her to a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury which materialised’

Question 23

what key element of causation for the conduct element was generated in Kennedy (No2)?

why?

Answer 23

there can only be a break in the chain of causation if the actions of the victim are ‘free, deliberate and informed’

requirement of the common law to respect autonomy and free will

Question 24

what case established the need for intervening third party actions needing to be extraordinary in order to break the chain of causation?

Answer 24

Environmental Agency v Empress Car Co 1999

it was not extraordinary that a third party would release the diesel from the unlocked tanks

Question 25

How does the principle found in Empress Car Co conflict with the judgement and reasoning in Kennedy (No2)?

Answer 25

does not seem extraordinary that after an individual is supplied with heroine they will use it and potentially give rise to the possibility of overdosing

effect of free will considered in the latter, but not the former

Question 26

how might it be argued that a drug dealer is liable for the deaths of clients who overdose?

Answer 26

reasonably foreseeable and not extraordinary that an individual may die by virtue of overdosing from the use of illegal drugs

drug dealer assumes a form of responsibility by engaging in the sale of illegal items