Actus Reus Flashcards
what is actus reus?
something D does, an act, a failure to act, it is the physical element of a crime
what is a conduct crime?
the actus reus is the prohibited conduct itself e.g. drink driving
what are consequence crimes?
the actus reus results in a consequence, causes it
what are state of affairs crimes?
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
voluntary nature of actus reus
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
omissions and actus reus
normal rule is omissions cannot make a person guilty of an offence
exception to rule on omissions
in some cases, it is possible for omissions to be actus reus
omissions only sufficient for AR when there’s a duty to act
Causation
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
factual cause
D is only guilty if consequence would not have happened “but for” the D’s conduct
factual causation cases
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
legal cause
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’.
cases for legal causation
R v Kimsey - must be more than ‘de minimis’
R v Hughes
thin skull rule
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
chain of causation
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)
factors breaking chain of causation
- 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
medical treatment and chain of causation
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
medical treatment R v Smith
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
R v Cheshire and medical treatment
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
R v Jordan and medical treatment
V given large amount of drug when doctor knew he was allergic is sufficiently independent act to break chain
life support machines
switching off life support machine by doctor when decided that V is braindead doesn’t break chain of causation
R v Malcherek
V’s own act and chain of causation
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
unreasonable reaction by V and chain of causation
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
