Actus Reus

Question 1

Haughton v Smith

Answer 1

Act does not make a man guilty of a crime unless his mind be also guilty.

Question 2

conduct crimes

Answer 2

don’t include result element - D’s conduct doesn’t need to cause anything to satisfy the requirements of the offence.

Question 3

Result crime

Answer 3

requires a result element - D performs conduct in certain proscribed circumstances with that conduct causing a certain proscribed result.

Question 4

criminal liability

Answer 4

involves D committing a guilty act with a guilty mind.

Question 5

strict liability offences

Answer 5

exception to criminal liability, don’t require the mens rea.

Question 6

Dimensions of criminal offence - AR

Answer 6

conduct (D’s physical acts or omissions needed for liability), circumstance (factual context needed for liability), result (outcomes or things caused by D needed for liability).

Question 7

can you have a thought crime?

Answer 7

no there is no crime without the AR

Question 8

acts

Answer 8

leaving out conduct is possible as some offences are defined so liability can arise even if there is no movement.

Question 9

omissions

Answer 9

must be a recognised offence, duty to act, failure to act.

Question 10

possession

Answer 10

D may have acted to gain possession of the unlawful thing, doesn’t require positive action.

Question 11

Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent

Answer 11

state of affairs - found drunk on the highway by police, wouldn’t go away, nuisance so they took him and carried him onto the road, criminal offence arises as he is drunk on the highway.

Question 12

circumstance element

Answer 12

required facts outside D’s conduct, mental circumstances, external circumstances.

Question 13

external circumstances

Answer 13

victim not consenting, property belonging to another, conduct must cause the death of a person (murder).

Question 14

result element

Answer 14

required outcomes/events that D must cause to be liable, results caused by D’s conduct.

Question 15

offences that don’t require particular result

Answer 15

perjury - doesn’t matter if the court is actually misled, enough that you are speaking to deliberately mislead them.

Question 16

causation in fact

Answer 16

must be logical connection in fact - if the result would have come about in the same manner regardless of D’s conduct, there is no factual causation.

Question 17

causation in law

Answer 17

not superseded by another element, conduct that has substantial effect and was blameworthy.

Question 18

causation between conduct and result

Answer 18

only where causation in law and fact satisfied

Question 19

acting - general duty to act

Answer 19

there is no general duty to act in criminal law - omitting or failing to act is not criminal.

Question 20

omissions fulfilling AR conduct element

Answer 20

some crimes - Airedale case = B in vegetative state but not clinically dead, family claimed withdrawing life support would not be murder, held clinical decisions should be made in best interests of the patient, wouldn’t be murder if in B best interests.

Question 21

liable for an omission

Answer 21

offence capable of being committed via omission, legally recognised duty to act, breach of that duty.

Question 22

five situations for a duty to act

Answer 22

specifics of an offence, under contract, familial or special relationship, assumption of care, creation of danger.

Question 23

duty to specifics of offence

Answer 23

offence explicitly defined as involving an omission (R v Dytham) = D police officer on duty and in uniform, saw individual being beaten by bouncers to death, didn’t call for assistance and was convicted of misconduct.

Question 24

contractual duty

Answer 24

r v pittwood - railway crossing, didn’t shut the gate, one man killed another injured, convicted of gross negligence manslaughter as duty rose under contract of employment.

Question 25

familial or special relationship

Answer 25

r v gibbins and proctor = neglected to feed a child, G gave P money for food, both convicted of murder as G was father and P voluntarily assumed responsibility by taking the money to buy the food.
r v hood = sole carer of wife, convicted of gross negligence manslaughter after failing to call an ambulance, evidence of neglect, convicted.

Question 26

r v nicholls (assumption of care)

Answer 26

V mother died, grandmother agreed to care, neglected him resulting in his death, convicted of gnm.

Question 27

r v stone and dobinson (assumption of care)

Answer 27

S was suffering and shut herself away for days at a time, neighbour tried to help care, didn’t manage, found dead, carer charged with manslaughter, if went to hospital she would have survived, as she was bed bound they had a duty to help - didn’t do enough to help.

Question 28

r v ruffel (assumption of care)

Answer 28

briefly tried to resuscitate V who overdosed, didn’t manage, left V on the doorstep and went to bed, V died of hypothermia, assumed a duty of care over the victim, not clear whether this duty was approved due to the voluntariness or creation of dangerous situation.

Question 29

creation of danger - Miller

Answer 29

didn’t put out a fire he started with a cigarette, caused £800 worth of damage, committed of arson, conduct was causative of the result and he failed to take preventative measures.

Question 30

creation of danger - Evans

Answer 30

supplied heroin to sister who then overdosed, D tried to do something but the V died, didn’t go far enough as didn’t get help so breached the duty = gnm.

Question 31

2 types of causation

Answer 31

factual and legal

Question 32

factual causation test

Answer 32

but for test - but for D actions, the result would not have occurred.

Question 33

legal causation

Answer 33

chain of causation, prosecution must prove there was no intervening act to break it. establishes where responsibility or liability rests, can’t establish this without factual causation.

Question 34

but for test

Answer 34

if the result would have occurred irrespective of D’s conduct factual causation is not established (r v white) = D attempted to poison his mother, mother died and he was charged with murder, didn’t die from the poison died from a heart issue - guilty of attempted murder.

Question 35

exception to liability to but for test

Answer 35

as long as D’s conduct causes the result when the act, there is factual causation = guilt

Question 36

r v benge

Answer 36

B got the timetable wrong for the trains, V was on the tracks working, caused an accident and V was killed found guilty of gnm - whilst others were but for causes, doesn’t undermine that D was a factual cause also.

Question 37

legal causation - requirements

Answer 37

• substantial - D conduct must have made a substantial contribution to the result.
• blameworthy - prove they performed blameworthy conduct and the blameworthiness was central to causation.
• operative

Question 38

R v Dalloway

Answer 38

D didn’t hold reins to his carts, performed blameworthy conduct and caused the death, even if D had control there wasn’t enough time to save the child, blameworthiness was not central to the child’s death, not guilty.

Question 39

r v hughes

Answer 39

caused death whilst driving without insurance or licence but V was entirely responsible, didn’t cause the death as it requires more than minimal thought for blameworthiness.

Question 40

operative

Answer 40

D must be doing something when the result occurs, must be a significant cause of the result at the time it comes about, looking for an intervening act.

Question 41

novus actus interveniens

Answer 41

intervention from D, intervention from natural events, intervention from V, intervention from third party.

Question 42

interventions from V (foreseeable events will not break the chain) - r v Roberts

Answer 42

D tried to molest V in moving car, V jumped out and sustained injuries, held forceable and D was responsible and liable.

Question 43

interventions from V (voluntary events will break the chain) - r v Kennedy

Answer 43

V self injected and died of an overdose, D supplied the heroin, held that D was not the legal cause of the death, self-injecting was the intervening act.

Question 44

interventions from V (voluntary events will break the chain) - R v field

Answer 44

D gave medicine knew would act adversely with alcohol to kill V, amended their will, died, found guilty of murder as it wasn’t a voluntary situation as they were led into it.

Question 45

interventions from V (voluntary events will break the chain) - R v rebelo

Answer 45

dangerous supplements provided to woman with psychological issues, became addicted, died, R charged with manslaughter, if buying/taking was in right mind and free informed her death was by free choice and D wouldn’t be liable.

Question 46

vulnerabilities of v will not break the chain - r v blaue

Answer 46

D stabbed V, refused blood transfusion, died, D liable as if a more serious result occurs than you intended, you are at fault as you take your victim as you find them

Question 47

r v dear

Answer 47

D daughter complained of sexual assault and he stabbed the V, didn’t cause his death, V died later from sudden blood loss, D charged with murder as the death was caused by bleeding from the artery which the D cut.

Question 48

r v Wallace

Answer 48

acid attack V left with life changing injuries, opted for euthanasia, first not charged as seen as breaking chain of cassation by euthanasia, then tried for murder with a focus on foreseeability but acquitted.

Question 49

foreseeability (interventions from third parties) - r v a

Answer 49

collision on motorway hard shoulder, whether it was foreseeable - foreseeable events will not break the chain.

Question 50

voluntariness (interventions from third party) - r v Michael

Answer 50

third party administered poison to V, died, held that the actions of the nurse and child giving it unknowingly were factual but not informed, D was liable

Question 51

status of this party - medical care

Answer 51

doctors may perform medical procedures on the criminals, may alter the actions - r v Jordan, r v smith, r v malcherek, r v steel, r v Cheshire = negligence needs to be so independent that D acts become so insignificant.

Question 52

status of third party - policing

Answer 52

r v pagett - D kidnapped girlfriend, after pursuit used her as a shield and shot t police who fired back and killed her, held act done because of a duty or self preservation isn’t an intervention, D liable.

Question 53

nature of the offence = pollution cases, R v Empress

Answer 53

third party opened oil tap, leaked into river, held that oil company still liable as excess conduct wasn’t an intervening act.