Actus Reus

Question 1

R v White

Answer 1

Factual causation

The accused (ac) poisoned mother – she died of heart attack – his acts did notcause death therefore only guilty of attempted murder. His actions did not fulfil the actus reus requirement of the offence.

Question 2

The People (AG) v McGrath

Answer 2

Legal causation - third parties

victim shot and left on road – priest found him and brought him to hospital – he died because he was moved – accused who shot victim said this broke chain
- HELD: Court rejected this – saying moving of body by innocent bystander was ‘a humane and well-intentioned act’ and did not break the chain
Maguire CJ – whether an act is extraordinary is a matter of fact and. degree which the court can apply in each case.

Question 3

R v Hallet

Answer 3

Legal causation - third parties

accused had fight with deceased – knocked him out on the shore and left him there – he drowned while unconscious – accused claimed this was a novus actus interveniens which broke the chain
- HELD: this did not break chain, no unusual event took place to break the chain
Only an event would be act of god which is ‘outside bound of predictable behaviour.’

Question 4

The People (AG) v Gallagher

Answer 4

Legal causation - conduct of the victim

person killed due to ac’s dangerous driving – the dead person was driving on wrong side of road so he did contribute to his death also
- HELD: Negligence on the part of the victim will not entitle the accused to an acquittal – sufficient if ac’s conduct contributed in a real way to death – need not be sole cause.

Question 5

R v Kennedy

Answer 5

Legal causation - conduct of victim

AC gave deceased heroin – Overdosed – called ambulance
- HELD: AC is not guilty for manslaughter for supplying drugs that caused death if the person taking the drugs made a fully informed and decision as a responsible adult.

Question 6

R v Chesire

Answer 6

Legal causation - medical treatment

ac shot man, wounded him – in intensive care - complication in treatment – he died – conviction upheld
HELD – ac’s acts could only be discounted if the treatment ‘was so independent of its acts, and in itself so potent in causing death.’
- Treatment must make ac’s acts remote

Question 7

R v Smith

Answer 7

Legal causation - medical treatment

soldiers fought one stabbed the other – injured person dropped on way to hospital – died
- HELD: AC still guilty – the wound he caused was still ‘an operating cause’

Question 8

DPP v Davies

Answer 8

Legal causation - medical treatment

CCA: to establish causation it is sufficient if the injuries caused ‘by the applicant were related to the death in a more minimal way’ even if there are other causes.

Question 9

R v Pagget

Answer 9

Multiple causes

accused used woman as shield and police shot at him – held AC was responsible as his act were a significant cause

Question 10

R v Holland

Answer 10

Egg shell rule

victim’s refusal to get medical treatment after D injured finger did not
exculpate D for conviction when he died from lockjaw

Question 11

R v Blaue

Answer 11

Egg shell rule

AC inflicted non-fatal wound on Jehovah Witness -refused blood transfusion – D still liable even though would have recovred if got blood transfusion
- Lawton LJ – ‘Victim must be taken as they are, ‘the whole man, not just the physical.’

Question 12

AG v Reference

Answer 12

AR not confined to immediate consequence

man guilty of murder when stabbed woman who was pregnant – baby was born premature and died.

Question 13

Fagan v Metropolitan

Answer 13

Continuing actions

accused drove on policeman’s foot – this first act was not intended
– he became aware of it and lefit it there… the leaving of the car on the foot was considered to satisfy the actus reus element.

Question 14

Kaitmaki v R

Answer 14

Continuing actions

sex is a continuing act – once consent is removed, it is no longer lawful

Question 15

R v Evans

Answer 15

Omissions

Generally, there is no criminal liability for omissions

Question 16

Hanley (ommissions commentary)

Answer 16

criminal law exists to suppress the doing of evil, not to promote the doing of good.

Question 17

R v Gibbons

Answer 17

Ommissions - Special relationships - parent and child

Parent and partner accused of murdering boy by withholding food from him – partner who moved in with father who was not biological mother was also guilty of murder on the basis of loco parentis – she assumed responsibility for the child.

Question 18

State v Walden

Answer 18

Ommissions - Special Relationships - parent and child

Limited – parents do not have a duty to put themselves in danger to protect children

Question 19

R v Nicholls

Answer 19

Ommissions - Special Relationships - parent and child

duty extends to grandparents if acting in ‘loco parentis’
 Limited – parents do not have a duty to put themselves in danger to protect children: State v
Walden – it is a reasonable duty

Question 20

DPP v OBrien

Answer 20

Ommissions - Special Relationships - Spouses

Quirke J cohabiting spouses have ‘a duty to take reasonable care for health and welfare of each other’ – emphasis on cohabitation. Not as significant as dependent\ children but ‘reasonably protective measures.’
The focus was on cohabitation – thus duty arises because of the substance of relationship

Question 21

R v Hood

Answer 21

Ommissions - Special Relationships - Spouses

man convicted of manslaughter – disabled wife fell broke bones and did not call ambulance until 3 weeks later

Question 22

R v Dytham

Answer 22

Ommissions - Special Relationhips - Public Officials

policeman stood by when bouncer kicked man to death – he had duty to protect members of public – court held any wilful neglect of public duty absent a reasonable justification is sufficient to ground the offence of misconduct

Question 23

R v Bartley

Answer 23

Ommissions - Special Relationships - Public Officials

complaints to gardai of sexual abuse which were not followed
up – Held gardai have a common law duty to investigate crimes – failure to do so is an offence (omission).

Question 24

Brown v Pitwood

Answer 24

Ommissions - Special Relationships - Contract

Employee, gatekeeper at railway – neglected to shut gate – convicted of manslaughter on account of leaving gate open where person drove through and was killed by a train.

Question 25

R v Nicholls

Answer 25

Ommissions - Voluntary Assumption of Risk

‘if a person who has chosen to take care of a helpless creature lets it die by wicked negligence, they are guilty of manslaughter.’

Question 26

R v Stone

Answer 26

Ommissions - Voluntary Assumption of Risk

couple took man’s sister – died in her bedroom – convicted of manslaughter as they had voluntarily assumed responsibility for her

Question 27

DPP v Joel & Costen (2016)

Answer 27

Ommissions - Voluntary Assumption of Risk

The Court of Appeal held that to convict a person of manslaughter – responsibility for death must be established. The People (DPP) v Joel and Costen at para 33 stated that “in cases of manslaughter, the jury should be told that the issue is whether the actions or omissions of the accused was asubstantial cause of the death”

Question 28

R v Miller

Answer 28

Ommissions - Creation of Risk

accused fell asleep smoking, woke up to mattress on fire – didn’t do anything but went into next room – Convicted for Arson – HELD held once accused realised mattress was burning, he had a positive duty to extinguish flames

Question 29

R v Santana

Answer 29

Ommissions - Creation of Risk

police asked suspect if had any sharp objects – said no – police pricked finger on syringe – applying Miller – suspect liable for injury