Actus Reus Flashcards
offences of strict liability
do not require proof of any mens rea
Voluntary actions only
The actus reus must be committed voluntarily, i.e. the act or omission must be under a person’s own free will.
Involuntary actions
No liability
Consequences if an involuntary act is forseeable?
if the onset of the impairment could reasonably be foreseen or anticipated due to a pattern or previous similar incidents - then the actions will be deemed voluntary despite the inability to control the impairment of the defendant’s actions, e.g. diagnosed narcoleptic falling asleep at the wheel
Establishing a causal link
prove a causal link between the act/omission and the relevant consequence
The “but for” test
“But for the defendant’s act or omission would the consequence have arisen?”
Does the act/omission need to be the sole cause of the consequence?
No, it just needs to be the operating and substantial (main) cause of the consequence
When will an intervening act break the chain of causation?
The chain of causation can be broke by a new intervening act - provided the new act both: is free, deliberate and informed - R v Latif (1996) or becomes the operating and substantial cause of the death
Accepted medical practice for treating injuries - chain of causation not broken
R v Smith (1959) - Assault causing injuries > accepted treatment > injuries from attack cause death
Treatment that is wholly inconsistent with accepted medical practice - chain of causation is broken
Treatment will break the chain of causation. R v Jordan (1956): stabbed > drug treatment>drug caused death
Anticipated actions by the victim
The actions of a victim will not break the chain of causation - if they are those which might reasonably be anticipated from a victim placed in such a situation
Daft voluntary actions by the victim
The actions of the victim will break the chain of causation - they are both: voluntary i.e. not a forced response to the situation they were placed in; and daft (R v Williams (1992))
Will a victim’s refusal to accept medical treatment on the grounds of their religious beliefs breaks the chain of causation?
No. R V Blaue (1975): Assault causing injuries> Transfusion refused on religious grounds> Injuries from attack cause death
Addict self-administers - addict breaks the chain of causation - No manslaughter
R v Kennedy (2007): Dealer supplies> Addict self administers (main cause of death) > chain broken > addict overdoses
Dealer helps to administer - chain present - manslaughter
R v Dias (2001): Dealer supplies > Dealer helps to administer (main cause of death) chain present > Addict overdoses
WHEN WILL AN INTERVENING ACT BREAK THE CHAIN OF CAUSATION
If an action occurs after the initial act or omission of the defendant - you must ask yourself what is the main cause of the consequence?
If the main cause is still the defendant’s initial act or omission - then the chain of causation is not broken and the defendant will have committed the actus reus of the offence.
If events have been overtaken by the subsequent intervening act so that the intervening act becomes the main cause of the consequence - then the chain of causation is broken, and the actus reus of the offence will not have committed.
Tricking the victim as to the purpose of providing the intoxicant
Where the defendant gives a victim an intoxicant, with the intent that the intoxicant shall kill the victim then provided the victim is unaware of the underlying intent, the chain of causation is maintained, even if the victim agreed to consume it because they have been tricked as to the purpose of consuming. If however, the victim was aware of the defendant’s intention that the intoxicant was intended to cause their death and they proceed to consume then because they would not be tricked as to the purpose of consumption their voluntary action will break the chain of causation.
