Actus Reus

Question 1

Conduct crimes and consequence crimes

Answer 1

• a conduct crime is where the actus reus is the prohibited conduct itself. There does not have to be a consequence e.g, drink driving
• a consequence crime is where the defendant doing something results in a prohibited consequence e.g, assault occasioning actual bodily harm. For the consequence crime to be deemed a crime however, the behaviour before and the consequence must have an actus reus

Question 2

‘State of affairs’ crimes and the voluntary nature of actus reus

Answer 2

• an example of a state of affairs crime is where the actus reus is simply the act in itself. E.g, carrying an offensive weapon in a public place or being in possession of controlled substance
• it doesnt matter what the defendant intends to do with either. The act in itself is an offence
• this can even extend occasionally to where the defendant has not entered into the offence voluntarily e.g, r v larsonneur
• however in most cases, if the defendant has no control over his actions then there is no actus reus e.g, having a heart attack while driving
• in other words, where there is absence of fault, the defendant is not liable

Question 3

Omissions as actus reus

Answer 3

• generally speaking, failing to act in a certain situation des not make a person guilty of an offence
• a ‘Good Samaritan’ law?
  Exceptions
• where a duty to act already exist, then actus reus applies in an omission

Question 4

Statutory duty

Answer 4

• when an act of Parliament creates liability when there is an omission, an offence can be committed for failing to do something
  For example:
• failing to stop or report a traffic accident (s 170 of the road traffic act 1988)
• failure to submit a breath test (s6 of the road traffic act 1988)
• failure to provide food, clothing and care to a child under your legal control (s 1 children and young persons act 1933)
• failure to protect a person in the same household that results in the death of the child or vulnerable adult (s 5 domestic violence, crime and victims act 2004)

Question 5

What is contractual duty

Answer 5

• where you have a duty of care in your job, e.g, a lifeguard leaving his post unattended where somebody drowns

Question 6

What is relationship duty

Answer 6

• where either a parent/child relationship operates, or the other way round, a child caring for an elderly relative. R v gibbons and proctor - shows how actus reus for murder was proved in a relationship case

Question 7

What is a duty which has been undertaken voluntarily

Answer 7

• where a duty has been taken on voluntarily, there also exist a case for liability. R v stone and dobinson and r v Evans

Question 8

Causation - factual cause

Answer 8

• where the consequences would not have happened but for the defendants actions. R v pagett - the defendant was convicted of manslaughter because even though he hadn’t directly killed her, she did as a result of his actions
• in white case - the defendant was found not guilty of murder, but guilty of attempted murder because his mother dies of a heart attack before he had the chance to poison her.
• there have been cases where the definition of ‘cause’ has been separated out between the struct legal effect and the ‘but for’ consequence.

Question 9

What is legal cause

Answer 9

• as ling as the prosecution can prove that the defendants conduct was more than ‘just a minimal cause’ of the consequence, then they can be convicted

Question 10

What is multiple causes

Answer 10

• the defendant can be guilty even if their conduct was not the only cause of the consequences

Question 11

What’s the ‘thin-skull’ rule

Answer 11

• If the victim suffers an even greater injury owing to their physical or mental state, in other words, they suffer more than a ‘normal’ person would, the defendant is liable for that injury - r v blaue

Question 12

Intervening acts

Answer 12

• if something separate happens between the defendants conduct and the end consequence this is called a ‘break in the chain of causation’
• the intervening acts has to be sufficiently serious and independent of the defendants conduct however for the defendant to be found not guilty

Question 13

Medical treatment

Answer 13

3 cases where medical treatment can potentially be cited as breaking the chain of causation
- r v smith
- r v Cheshire
- r v Jordan

Question 14

Victims own act

Answer 14

• liability applies here when the defendant causes the victim to act in such a way that the injure themselves
• r v Robert’s and r v majoram
• sometimes the victims own act can break the chain of causation. R v Kennedy, in this case, despite the fact that the defendant had supplied class A drugs to a friend, the victim did not administer the drug. The victim died of the heroin overdose because he chose to do it himself, knowing the risk

Question 15

Unreasonable reaction

Answer 15

• if the victim reacts in a disproportionate or unreasonable way to a threat and in so doing injuries or kills themselves, then the chain of causation may also be broken
• in r v Williams and Davis, a hitch hiker jumped from Williams care because, the prosecution alleged, there had been an attempt to steal his wallet. The victim dies of head injures. In this case, the court of appeal said that in order for causation to be proved, the victims act had to be foreseeable and in proportion to the threat - therefore the chain of causation was broken