Actus Reus Flashcards
Haughton v Smith
Act does not make a man guilty of a crime unless his mind be also guilty.
conduct crimes
don’t include result element - D’s conduct doesn’t need to cause anything to satisfy the requirements of the offence.
Result crime
requires a result element - D performs conduct in certain proscribed circumstances with that conduct causing a certain proscribed result.
criminal liability
involves D committing a guilty act with a guilty mind.
strict liability offences
exception to criminal liability, don’t require the mens rea.
Dimensions of criminal offence - AR
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).
can you have a thought crime?
no there is no crime without the AR
acts
leaving out conduct is possible as some offences are defined so liability can arise even if there is no movement.
omissions
must be a recognised offence, duty to act, failure to act.
possession
D may have acted to gain possession of the unlawful thing, doesn’t require positive action.
Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent
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.
circumstance element
required facts outside D’s conduct, mental circumstances, external circumstances.
external circumstances
victim not consenting, property belonging to another, conduct must cause the death of a person (murder).
result element
required outcomes/events that D must cause to be liable, results caused by D’s conduct.
offences that don’t require particular result
perjury - doesn’t matter if the court is actually misled, enough that you are speaking to deliberately mislead them.
causation in fact
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.
causation in law
not superseded by another element, conduct that has substantial effect and was blameworthy.
causation between conduct and result
only where causation in law and fact satisfied
acting - general duty to act
there is no general duty to act in criminal law - omitting or failing to act is not criminal.
omissions fulfilling AR conduct element
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.
liable for an omission
offence capable of being committed via omission, legally recognised duty to act, breach of that duty.
five situations for a duty to act
specifics of an offence, under contract, familial or special relationship, assumption of care, creation of danger.
duty to specifics of offence
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.
contractual duty
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.
familial or special relationship
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.
r v nicholls (assumption of care)
V mother died, grandmother agreed to care, neglected him resulting in his death, convicted of gnm.
r v stone and dobinson (assumption of care)
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.
r v ruffel (assumption of care)
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.
creation of danger - Miller
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.
creation of danger - Evans
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.
2 types of causation
factual and legal
factual causation test
but for test - but for D actions, the result would not have occurred.
legal causation
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.
but for test
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.
exception to liability to but for test
as long as D’s conduct causes the result when the act, there is factual causation = guilt
r v benge
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.
legal causation - requirements
- 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
R v Dalloway
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.
r v hughes
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.
operative
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.
novus actus interveniens
intervention from D, intervention from natural events, intervention from V, intervention from third party.
interventions from V (foreseeable events will not break the chain) - r v Roberts
D tried to molest V in moving car, V jumped out and sustained injuries, held forceable and D was responsible and liable.
interventions from V (voluntary events will break the chain) - r v Kennedy
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.
interventions from V (voluntary events will break the chain) - R v field
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.
interventions from V (voluntary events will break the chain) - R v rebelo
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.
vulnerabilities of v will not break the chain - r v blaue
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
r v dear
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.
r v Wallace
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.
foreseeability (interventions from third parties) - r v a
collision on motorway hard shoulder, whether it was foreseeable - foreseeable events will not break the chain.
voluntariness (interventions from third party) - r v Michael
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
status of this party - medical care
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.
status of third party - policing
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.
nature of the offence = pollution cases, R v Empress
third party opened oil tap, leaked into river, held that oil company still liable as excess conduct wasn’t an intervening act.
