Actus Reus

Question 1

what is actus reus?

Answer 1

something D does, an act, a failure to act, it is the physical element of a crime

Question 2

what is a conduct crime?

Answer 2

the actus reus is the prohibited conduct itself e.g. drink driving

Question 3

what are consequence crimes?

Answer 3

the actus reus results in a consequence, causes it

Question 4

what are state of affairs crimes?

Answer 4

criminalises a defendant being found in a particular circumstance at a particular time, irrelevant of how they got there, thus they are an exception to the voluntary principle of actus reus. For example, being drunk on a public highway. e.g. larsonneaur

Question 5

voluntary nature of actus reus

Answer 5

must be voluntary on part of D, however an exception is larsonnuer
R v Mitchell, the man who was hit and fell on woman is not liable for any criminal act, illustrates how criminal law is concerned with fault on part of D

Question 6

omissions and actus reus

Answer 6

normal rule is omissions cannot make a person guilty of an offence

Question 7

exception to rule on omissions

Answer 7

in some cases, it is possible for omissions to be actus reus
omissions only sufficient for AR when there’s a duty to act

Question 8

Causation

Answer 8

where a consequence must be proved, prosecution has to show:

• D’s conduct was the factual cause of that consequence
• it was the legal cause of the consequence
• there was no intervening act which broke the chain of causation

Question 9

factual cause

Answer 9

D is only guilty if consequence would not have happened “but for” the D’s conduct

Question 10

factual causation cases

Answer 10

R v Pagett - girl wouldn’t have died ‘but for’ D’s conduct

White - mother died of a heart attack, D was not factual cause of death

R v Hughes - held that factual causation not necessarily enough on its own. although he was the cause in that there wouldn’t have been a collision, not enough to be a legal effective cause as he hit van by chance

Question 11

legal cause

Answer 11

there may be more than one act contributing to consequence. some may be made by other people than D. rule is that D can be guilty if their conduct was more than a ‘minimal’ cause of consequence.
D’s conduct need not be a substantial cause. conduct must be more than ‘de minimis’, more than ‘slight or trifling link’.

Question 12

cases for legal causation

Answer 12

R v Kimsey - must be more than ‘de minimis’

R v Hughes

Question 13

thin skull rule

Answer 13

if V has unusual physical or mental state making injury more serious, D is liable for more serious injury.
R v Blaue - Jehovah’s Witness made wound fatal , D still liable

Question 14

chain of causation

Answer 14

must be direct link between D’s conduct and consequence = the chain of causation
however something may happen after Ds act and may break this chain
if Ds conduct causes foreseeable action by third party, D likely to be held to have caused consequence (pagett)

Question 15

factors breaking chain of causation

Answer 15

• an act of a third party
• victim’s own act
• a natural but unpredictable act

act must be sufficiently independent of Ds conduct and must be sufficiently serious

Question 16

medical treatment and chain of causation

Answer 16

medical treatment unlikely to break chain unless it is so independent of D’s acts and ‘in itself so potent in causing death’ that Ds act is insignificant

Question 17

medical treatment R v Smith

Answer 17

D guilty provided the injury caused by D was still an ‘operating’ and ‘substantial’ cause of death. stab wound was still ‘operating’ as it hadn’t yet healed and was substantial cause of death

Question 18

R v Cheshire and medical treatment

Answer 18

even though treatment was ‘short of the standard expected of competent medical practitioners’ D still criminally responsible for death
V would not have needed treatment if they hadn’t been injured by D so attacker is still liable

Question 19

R v Jordan and medical treatment

Answer 19

V given large amount of drug when doctor knew he was allergic is sufficiently independent act to break chain

Question 20

life support machines

Answer 20

switching off life support machine by doctor when decided that V is braindead doesn’t break chain of causation
R v Malcherek

Question 21

V’s own act and chain of causation

Answer 21

if D causes v to react in foreseeable way injury to V will be considered to have been caused by D - R v Roberts

own acts will break chain - R v Kennedy, administered drug himself

Question 22

unreasonable reaction by V and chain of causation

Answer 22

may break chain. R v Williams and Davis, hitchhiker jumped from car as there was attempt by D to steal wallet, V died, V’s act was not proportionate to threat