actus reus Flashcards
1
Q
actus reus
A
- collection of principles and doctrines concerned with the objective attribution of criminal liability
- outlines the conduct made criminal by a statutory offence
- establishes a link between the person and the occurred criminal harm
- if link is established the criminal liability is imposed
2
Q
elements of acts reus
A
- conduct
- consequences
- e.g. death of another person
- circumstances
- e.g. certain qualities in the person who commits the crime
- further list of conditions which have to be fulfilled in order for liability to arise
3
Q
result offences
A
- law requires a specific result to occur: e.g. murder
- offence definition requires conduct, causation and fault to be proven
- prohibit a wide range of conduct if they lead to the proscribed harm
4
Q
conduct crimes
A
- do not require a specific result
- consummate once the prohibited conduct has taken place
- conduct and fault need to be proven
- wrongdoing is constituted in the conduct itself
5
Q
strict liability offences
A
- only conduct and causation need to be established
- exception to the principle of guilt
- integral to the English and Dutch systems and are often used in economic and regulatory offences
6
Q
bipartite system
A
- distinguishes between objective and subjective aspects of crime
-criminal liability requires both acts zeus and mens rea - fails to account for the entire range of defences that are grouped under categories for justification
7
Q
tripartite system
A
- fulfilment of offence definition
- wrongdoing
- blameworthiness
R v Dudley and Stephens 1884
8
Q
causal theory of action
A
- a criminal act consists of a filled body movement
- man is a creature of animus and corpus
- doesn’t take negligence into account
- omission- do not physically do anything but you commit a crime
9
Q
teleological theory of action
A
- human action is intrinsically purposive and not merely the external manifestation of an inner mechanism
- difficult to argue that a person acted in a gaol-oriented way in cases of omission and negligence
10
Q
social theory of action
A
- criminal conduct needs to be interpreted in the social context in which it occurred
- conduct is a social phenomenon rather than a natural one
NL= doctrine of functional perpetration
DE= doctrine of hegemony over the act
Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland
11
Q
duty of care- part of omission
- proper omission because its within statutory law
A
- an obligation which can be enforced by means of criminal law to avoid certain acts or omissions likely to cause harm to others
- are found in cases of negligence and endangerment offences
12
Q
England- omission
A
- cannot be held liable for omissions
- some omissions can trigger criminal liability if there is a general duty of care
13
Q
Netherlands- omission
A
- criminal liability can arise from failure to act
- it requires that the person had a general duty of care and capacity to do so
- flexible act requirement
14
Q
duties based on a special relationship to the victim
- improper omission
A
UK= R v Walter Gibbins and Edith Rose proctor 1919
- R v Adomako
NL= Court of first instance, Breda, 27 November 2006
- article 257 DCC
15
Q
Undertaken duties
A
- where a person has voluntarily assumed a responsibility or has undertaken a duty but not fulfilled their obligation, which led to harm
UK= R v Stone and Dobinson
DE= Wuppertal railroad
16
Q
duties based on specific qualities of the offender
A
- duties arising from social positions
- duties that arise in relation to civil servants, who because of their social role are under a duty to fulfil their function properly
UK= R v Adomako
NL= Jomanda healing medium
- 7:453 DCC
17
Q
duties based on ownership of or responsibility for a source of danger
A
- criminal liability is imposed when a person had a right to control the actions of another and they deliberately refrained from exercising it
- inactivity may be seen as encouragement to perform an illegal act
e.g. A landlord is under a duty of care if due to particular circumstances protected legal interests are endangered in the spatial sphere of the lodging
UK= R v Miller Appellant 1983
DE= roof case page 148
18
Q
field of application of causation
A
- important for result crimes as it links the conduct and the result
- plays a role in the endangerment offences or some conduct ones where you need to prove that the harm was caused by the conduct
- offences where the manifestation of a certain result triggers an aggravation of punishment
- crimes of negligence where the public prosecutor needs to prove that the violation of the duty of care by the defendant has caused criminal harm
19
Q
conditio sine qua non
A
- the cause of an event is the whole set pot factors that played a role in the bringing about of an event
- every condition which cannot be eliminated from this set of factors without eliminating the result is regarded as legal cause
- doctrine may be over or under inclusive
20
Q
theory of proximate cause
A
- the most proximate indispensable condition is criminally relevant
- cause closest to the result
- causal forces can be suspended by new causes
21
Q
theory of adequate causation
A
- a condition is the adequate cause of a consequence if it has a tendency to be followed by a consequence of this sort
- was the pertinent result foreseeable?
22
Q
underlying offence
A
- crucial role in establishing causal link between a result and the offender’s conduct
- criminal liability should be envisaged by the purpose of the law violated
23
Q
reasonable attribution - Netherlands
A
- determine whether the result can be attributed to the offenders conduct
- establishment of a causal link entails a normative judgement
- casuistic and flexible- offenders conduct need to necessarily be the sole cause of the occurred result
pub assault case - 2006
24
Q
theory of condition - Germany
A
- every necessary condition of an event is its cause when it cannot be eliminated from the chain of events without eliminating the result
- a certain fact doesn’t need to be the main or sole cause of a result, it’s enough that it is one of the number of causes
25
common sense - England
- causation should be established by common sense
- introduces a degree of uncertainty into the evaluation process, as it relies on conventions which are subject to change
26
naturally occurring interventions
naturally occurring interventions break the chain of causation but only under the condition that they were extraordinary and not reasonable foreseeable
27
conduct of the victim breaking causal chain
- the victims subsequent acts intervene in the chain of events
- e.g. panic reactions or other irrational conduct prompted by fear, despair etc
- NL= victim refused pneumonia treatment caused by gunshot - broke causal link
- R v Roberts 1971
- forced girl into his car and she jumped out/ he was convicted
- R v Blaue- jehova's witness
-
28
medical interventions
- conduct by medical professionals
- German Supreme Court 8 July 2008
- doctors that have emergency surgeries cannot be expected to always get it right
- R v Cheshire
- rare complication was held to be a direct consequence of the appellant's act which remained a significant cause of death
- R v Adomako
29
commission
- control over actions
- consciousness - voluntary conduct
30
via absoluta cases
- loss of bodily control
- sudden impulse that cannot be control, reflexes, spasms
- R v Parks
