Actus Reus Flashcards
Quick Q:
A prosecutor has received a file from the police asking for advice as to whether the actus reus is satisfied for an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The incident occurred between two students who were arguing over comments made in a social media post, while waiting for the bus outside the local high school. The dispute escalated into a fight and the defendant hit and slapped the victim causing several injuries. The arresting officer stated that the victim was visibly distressed when he arrived and was in tears at the scene. The officer also noted that the victim had a red mark on her cheek from being slapped although this quickly faded.
The prosecutor considers the medical report which confirms that the victim suffered a very small bruise on her arm and a minor scratch on her face. The defendant had also pulled a chunk of hair from the victim’s head leaving a bald patch on her scalp.
Which of the following injuries would be sufficient to satisfy the actus reus of an assault occasioning actual bodily harm?
The bald patch on the victim’s scalp.
The correct answer is option E. The actus reus for an assault under s.47 OAPA 1861 requires any hurt or injury which interferes with the health or comfort of the victim and which is more than ‘transient or trifling’ – R v Miller [1954]. Cutting a substantial piece of a victim’s hair is ABH so pulling a chunk of the victim’s hair out leaving a bald patch would also satisfy this definition.
Option A is wrong because simple distress is not sufficient – actual bodily harm would require, for example, anxiety neurosis or reactive depression. Option B is wrong as the red mark faded quickly so is ‘transient’. Options C and D are wrong because a very small bruise and a minor scratch are ‘trifling’.
Transient or trifling = “Transient” means that the injury will pass with time, without permanent damage or disfigurement, while “trifling” is interpreted by the courts to mean insignificant or petty.
Quick Q:
A student aged 11 is walking along a canal. He sees another boy from school coming towards him, and recognises the boy as being someone from his class who he does not like. As the student walks past the boy, he pushes the boy into the canal, hoping to scare and shock him. To the student’s surprise, the boy cannot swim and whilst the student stands at the canal side, the boy drowns. The student runs away in a panic.
Will the student potentially be liable for his omission to act?
Yes, because he has created a dangerous situation, he is aware he has created it and failed to take any steps to help the boy.
Option A is the correct option because, by pushing the boy into the water, he has created a dangerous situation (R v Miller [1983]), he is aware he created the situation and therefore has a duty to take steps reasonably available to him to remedy the dangerous situation.
The victim is walking beside a river one evening when he is approached by the defendant who is desperate for money to buy drugs. The defendant pulls out a large knife from his pocket and threatens the victim with it. When the victim refuses to hand over his wallet, the defendant lunges at him with the knife and stabs him in the stomach. The victim subsequently dies. The defendant is arrested for murder but argues that he is not liable because of an intervening event.
Which of the following events is most likely to break the chain of causation?
A-The victim is a good swimmer and so he decides to jump into the river to try to escape but he drowns as he is caught in weeds growing underwater.
B-The victim is lying severely injured when there is a sudden thunderstorm during which the river rises so rapidly, it bursts its banks and he is drowned.
C-The victim is taken to hospital but, on the way, the ambulance driver is taken ill; the victim dies while waiting for a second ambulance to arrive
D-The victim needs an emergency operation due to the severity of the stab wound, but he dies from complications arising out of the surgery
E-The victim refuses to accept a blood transfusion because of his religious beliefs and dies from the stab wound when he would not have done otherwise
Option B is the correct answer as the victim dies of an unforeseen and extraordinary natural event.
Option A is wrong as the chain of causation is not broken here because the victim’s act is not free, deliberate and informed; effectively, he is forced into the situation. Also, a good swimmer jumping into a river to escape being stabbed is not ‘daft’ – R v Roberts [1971].
Option C is wrong because the ambulance stopping due to the driver becoming unwell is also not free, deliberate and informed (voluntary). Furthermore, the defendant remains liable for the victim’s death in option D as the stab wound is the substantial and operating cause of the victim’s death because he dies from complications in the surgery which was needed to save him.
The victim’s refusal to accept medical treatment in option E is not an intervening event because the defendant must take their victim as they find them and this includes the ‘whole man’ and not just the ‘physical man’ – R v Blaue [1975].
Legislation provides that: ‘A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another, with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. ‘
Which of the following below best describes the actus reus of theft?
A-“appropriation of property belonging to another”
B-“appropriation of property with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”
C-“dishonest appropriation”
D-“appropriation”
E-“dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another, with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”
Option A is the best answer. This describes the actus reus of the crime only.
Option B is wrong because it does not specify that the property must belong to another and incorporates the mens rea of intention to permanently deprive.
Option C is wrong because it includes the mens rea element of dishonest and does not specify what must be appropriated.
Option D is wrong because it does not specify either what must be appropriated or the fact that the property must belong to another.
Option E is wrong because it covers all the actus reus and the mens rea elements of the offence namely dishonesty and intention to permanently deprive.
A group of people are standing on a railway platform. When the train arrives, it is very full and the crowd moves quickly towards the doors to climb aboard. A woman forces her way to the front and, when she is asked to stop pushing, she puts her fist up to the man’s face shouting, “Get lost you stupid man or I’ll punch you”. The man is not afraid but backs away to allow the woman to get on the train because he is concerned that she will hit him.
A-What part of these facts best describes the actus reus for the offence of simple assault?
B-The woman raising her fist at the man.
C-The woman raising her fist and threatening to punch the man.
D-The woman’s intention for the man to apprehend immediate unlawful force.
E-Because the man is not afraid of the woman, the facts do not satisfy the actus reus.
Option C is the correct option as both the action of gesturing with her fists and the woman’s threat satisfy the actus reus of simple assault. Option A and B are correct but are not the best answer for this reason. There is no need for the man to be afraid of the woman provided that he apprehends immediate and unlawful force, which he does, so option E is wrong. Option D relates to the mens rea so this is also wrong.
Quick Q:
A man is arrested for the offence of battery. During his police interview, he tells the police that he only pushed the victim in self-defence because he thought the victim was going to hit him. He is then charged with battery.
Which of the following best describes the operation of the burden and standard of proof at his trial for battery?
Assuming the man gives evidence during his trial of self-defence, then the prosecution must disprove it beyond reasonable doubt.
Option D is correct because once the defendant gives evidence of self-defence in court, the onus is then on the prosecution to disprove it beyond reasonable doubt.
Option A is wrong because the man has the evidential burden of raising self-defence in his evidence at trial.
Option B is wrong because the burden of disproving the defence only arises once the man gives some evidence of it in court.
Option C is wrong because the prosecution must disprove it to the full criminal standard not the civil standard of balance of probabilities.
Option E is wrong because the burdens and standards of proof are the same irrespective of which court hears the case.
Quick Q:
The police have charged a man with murder. It is alleged that the man attacked his victim with a knife, stabbing him in the leg. The victim was taken to hospital where he underwent emergency surgery. After the surgery, the victim appeared to be making a good recovery but he contracted a serious post-operative infection and died two weeks later. Further investigation shows that the infection was caused by poor standards of cleaning on the hospital ward, due to the hospital trust’s decision to reduce the number of cleaners to save money.
Which of the following statements best describes whether the man caused the victim’s death to establish the actus reus of murder?
The prosecution must prove that, but for the stabbing, the victim would not have died as he did. They must also prove that the stab wound was an operating and substantial cause of death or that it was foreseeable that the victim might get a post-operative infection.
Option D correctly identifies the law on causation, namely that both factual and legal causation must be established. It correctly sets out the test of factual causation and the alternatives to prove legal causation. The burden is accurately described as that of the prosecution.
Option A is not the best option as it only identifies the test of factual causation.
Option B is not the best option as it does not refer to factual causation and only deals with one of the ways of establishing legal causation.
Option C is not the best option because, although it accurately refers to factual causation, it only deals with one of the ways of establishing legal causation and that test is wrong – the issue is foreseeability not whether it was foreseen by the man.
Option E is not the best option because it incorrectly describes the causation argument as a defence whereas it is an element of the actus reus of murder which the prosecution have to prove.
Quick Q:
A defendant is charged with murder after stabbing the victim during an argument over money. The defendant was arrested at the scene standing over the victim with the bloodied knife in their hand. The defendant intends to rely upon the general defence of self-defence and the partial defences of loss of control and diminished responsibility.
Which of the following best describes how the legal and evidential burdens would operate in this case, and what standard of proof applies?
The legal and evidential burden is on the prosecution to prove the actus reus and mens rea of murder beyond reasonable doubt . There is an evidential burden on the defendant if relying upon self-defence or loss of control, but a legal burden to discharge for diminished responsibility.
The correct answer is option E. The legal and evidential burden of proving the actus reus and mens rea of homicide is on the prosecution to the normal criminal standard, namely beyond reasonable doubt. However, if the defendant wishes to raise the general defence of self-defence, they have an evidential burden to discharge. Having produced some evidence that raises the defence, the burden reverts back to the prosecution to disprove it beyond reasonable doubt. This also applies to the partial defence of loss of control. In contrast, the legal burden of proving all elements of diminished responsibility is on the defendant.
Option A is wrong as it states that there is an evidential burden in relation to diminished responsibility, whereas this should be a legal burden. Option B is wrong because the general defence of self-defence would lead to a complete acquittal rather than a verdict of manslaughter and this would be a better outcome for the defendant.
Option C is wrong because although the legal and evidential burden is on the prosecution to prove the actus reus and mens rea of murder, the standard required is beyond reasonable doubt and not on the balance of probabilities.
Option D is wrong because there is only an evidential burden on the defendant if relying on the defence of self-defence. The remainder of the answer is correct.
