actus reus

Question 1

actus reus

Answer 1

• 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

Question 2

elements of acts reus

Answer 2

1. conduct
2. consequences
   
   • e.g. death of another person
3. 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

Question 3

result offences

Answer 3

• 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

Question 4

conduct crimes

Answer 4

• 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

Question 5

strict liability offences

Answer 5

• 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

Question 6

bipartite system

Answer 6

• 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

Question 7

tripartite system

Answer 7

1. fulfilment of offence definition
2. wrongdoing
3. blameworthiness

R v Dudley and Stephens 1884

Question 8

causal theory of action

Answer 8

• 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

Question 9

teleological theory of action

Answer 9

• 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

Question 10

social theory of action

Answer 10

• 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

Question 11

duty of care- part of omission
- proper omission because its within statutory law

Answer 11

• 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

Question 12

England- omission

Answer 12

• cannot be held liable for omissions
• some omissions can trigger criminal liability if there is a general duty of care

Question 13

Netherlands- omission

Answer 13

• 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

Question 14

duties based on a special relationship to the victim
- improper omission

Answer 14

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

Question 15

Undertaken duties

Answer 15

• 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

Question 16

duties based on specific qualities of the offender

Answer 16

• 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

Question 17

duties based on ownership of or responsibility for a source of danger

Answer 17

• 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

Question 18

field of application of causation

Answer 18

• 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

Question 19

conditio sine qua non

Answer 19

• 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

Question 20

theory of proximate cause

Answer 20

• the most proximate indispensable condition is criminally relevant
  
  • cause closest to the result
• causal forces can be suspended by new causes

Question 21

theory of adequate causation

Answer 21

• 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?

Question 22

underlying offence

Answer 22

• 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

Question 23

reasonable attribution - Netherlands

Answer 23

• 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

Question 24

theory of condition - Germany

Answer 24

• 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

Question 25

common sense - England

Answer 25

• 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

Question 26

naturally occurring interventions

Answer 26

naturally occurring interventions break the chain of causation but only under the condition that they were extraordinary and not reasonable foreseeable

Question 27

conduct of the victim breaking causal chain

Answer 27

• 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

Question 28

medical interventions

Answer 28

• 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

Question 29

commission

Answer 29

• control over actions
• consciousness - voluntary conduct

Question 30

via absoluta cases

Answer 30

• loss of bodily control
• sudden impulse that cannot be control, reflexes, spasms
• R v Parks