Actus reus

Question 1

Burden and standard of proof

Answer 1

The legal burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove all the elements of the offence, including (in most cases) disproving the defence.

The evidential burden is also on the prosecution to provide sufficient evidence for each
element of the offence.

The standard of proof, where the prosecution has the burden, is beyond reasonable
doubt.

Question 2

General principles of actus reus

Answer 2

Actus reus of every offence is different and may be found either in statute or in the common law.

All elements of an offence that do not relate to the state of mind.

Question 3

Types of crimes

Answer 3

1. Conduct
   Requires conduct e.g. perjury.
2. Result
   It is not enough that the defendant acts in
   a particular way; certain consequences must follow from their actions if the actus reus is to
   be satisfied e.g. murder.
3. Circumstances
   The existence of a state of affairs, or a particular set of circumstances.

Question 4

Omissions

Answer 4

The general rule is that there is no criminal liability for omissions.

Exemptions:
- Some statutory offences
- Common law offences

Question 5

Omissions - common law exemptions

Answer 5

• Duty arising out of contract
  e.g, doctors and nurses (to care for their patients), members of the emergency services (to take all reasonable steps to safeguard the
  public)
• Special relationship
  Either by reason
  of family ties or because the defendant has assumed a duty towards the victim.
• Creation of a dangerous situation
  The duty is to take reasonable steps to avert the danger.

Question 6

Causation

Answer 6

Both factual and legal causation must be present.

Question 7

Factual causation

Answer 7

But for the defendant’s conduct, would the
consequence have occurred?

Question 8

Legal causation

Answer 8

The defendant’s conduct must be a substantial and operating cause of the consequence.

The consequence must be attributable to a culpable act or omission.

The culpable act must be a more than minimal cause of the consequence.

The culpable act need not be the sole cause.

The accused must take their victim as they find them.

The chain of causation must not be broken.

Question 9

Causation - Intervening acts or events - Victims acts

Answer 9

• Escape cases:
• whether the escape is within the range of reasonable responses to be expected of a victim in that situation;
• whether the victim’s response is proportionate to the threat; or
• whether it is so ‘daft’ as to be a voluntary act; and
• the fact that the victim is acting in ‘the agony of the moment’ without time for thought or deliberation
• Suicide:
• whether it was reasonably foreseeable that the victim would commit suicide as a result of their injuries.

Question 10

Causation - Intervening acts or events - Third party intervention

Answer 10

A defendant will not be liable if a third party’s intervening act is either free, deliberate
and informed, or is not reasonably foreseeable.

Question 11

Causation - Intervening acts or events - Medical negligence

Answer 11

Will not break the chain of causation unless it is so independent of the defendant’s
actions and so potent in causing death that it makes the contribution made by the accused’s acts insignificant.

Question 12

Causation - Intervening acts or events - Act of God

Answer 12

May break the chain of causation with the foreseeability of
the subsequent event being the determining factor for liability.

Chain may also be broken by events other than natural ones.