ACTUS REUS

Question 1

WHAT IS ACTUS REUS

Answer 1

All offences under criminal law, i.e., crimes, require proof of the stated actus reus.

The actus reus is essentially the physical act in an offence.

The actus reus is part of two elements (ACTUS REUS + MENS REA) that must be proven for the given offence (as stated in the legislation) before a person accused of a crime can be convicted.

The actus reus does not always require the physical doing of an act, and in some cases omitting from doing something may constitute the actus reus of an offence. So, when we are studying actus reus in criminal law we will first learn about causation, which constitutes factual and legal causation. We will then learn about the few limited situations where an omission can give rise to liability in criminal law.

Question 2

FACTUAL CAUSATION

Answer 2

APPLYING THE ‘BUT-FOR’ TEST , WOULD THE REUSLT HAVE OCCURED BUT-FOR THE ACTIONS OIF THE ACCUSED

R v White – The accused (ac) poisoned mother – she died of heart attack – his acts did not cause death therefore only guilty of attempted murder. His actions did not fulfil the actus reus requirement of the offence.
The act must be a causa sine qua non (cause without which) it would not have occurred.

Question 3

LEGAL CAUSATION.

Answer 3

MUST PROVE AN UNBROKEN CHAIN OF CAUSATION BETWEEN THE ACTIONS OF THE ACCUSED AND THE RESULT - IF SOMETHING INTERVENES (NOIVUS ACTUS INTERVIENIENS) AND THE CHAIN IS BROKEN THE ACCUSED MAY BE EXONERATED

The accused’s act must be proven to have been operative and a substantial cause of the result.

The chain of causation between the accused’s act and the result will only be broken if an intervening act which is ‘so overwhelming as to make the original act merely part of the history’ – R v Smith (1959).

Question 4

what re the different headings for legal causation case law?

Answer 4

1. Third Parties
2. conduct of the victims
3. medical treatment
4. may be more than one cause, but accused actions os more than de minimis
5. Egg-Shell Rule
6. Not confined to immediate consequences provided it is substantial
7. can be a continuous series of actions

Question 5

LC - THIRD PARTIES

Answer 5

People (AG) v McGrath
– 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.

R v Hallet
– 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 an act of god which is ‘outside bound of predictable behaviour.’

Question 6

LC - CONDUCT OF VICTIM

Answer 6

People (AG) v Gallagher

– 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.

R v Kennedy

– 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 7

LC - MEDICAL TREATMENT

Answer 7

R v Chesire

– 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.

R v Smith
– 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’ – only if the second cause is ‘so overwhelming to make the original wound part of history’ can it be said that the death does not flow from the original wound

DPP v Davies (IRL)
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.

R v Jordan
– victim of stab wound recovering - had an allergic reaction to treatment which was negligently given in hospital – and died – HELD stab wound no longer operative to the victim’s death – chain was broken – AC was not liable

Question 8

LC - THERE MAY BE MORE THAN ONE CAUSE BUT THE ACCUSED ACTIONS IS MORE THAN DE MINIMIS

Answer 8

R v Pagget

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

Question 9

LC - EGG-SHELL RULE

Answer 9

Victim must be taken as they are found

Kilcommins states that this is ground in public policy as the initial injury should have happened in the first place

R v Holland

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

R v Blaue

– 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 10

LC - NOT CONFINED TO IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCES PROVIDED IT IS SUBSTANTIAL

Answer 10

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

Question 11

LC - CAN BE A CONTINUING SERIES OF ACTIONS

Answer 11

Fagan v Metropolitan

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

Kaitmaki v R

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

Question 12

WHAT IS AN OMMISSION

Answer 12

An omission means a failure to do something or act, particularly when one has a moral or legal obligation to do so. Generally, an omission to act does not give rise to criminal liability as held in R v Evans.

Question 13

WHY DOES OM MISSIONS GENERALLY NOT GIVE RISE TO CRIMINAL PENALISE

Answer 13

Why is this?

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

McCauley and McCutcheon – ‘common law tradition is one of reluctance to penalise omissions.’
Criminal law is a tool for sanctioning wrongdoing to deter others from doing the same, rather than putting a positive duty on persons to act a certain way.

Question 14

WHAT ARE THE EXCEPTIONS

Answer 14

This basic rule is subject to exceptions where liability may be imposed where one has a legal obligation to act and fails to do so:

A. Special Relationships
B. Voluntary assumption of risk
C. Creation of risk (Miller Principle)
D. Statute

Question 15

SPECIAL RELATIONSHIPS

Answer 15

4 CATEGORIES

1. SPOUSES
2. PARENT AND CHILD
3. PUBLIC OFFICIALS
4. CONTRACT

Question 16

VOLUNTARY ASSUMPTION OF RISK

Answer 16

If a person voluntarily assumes responsibility for another, they must take responsibility for their choices.

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

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

DPP v Joel & Anor – mother moved into home with daughter – MS – health deteriorated – found in faeces and bed sores – HELD: Couple convicted of manslaughter.

Question 17

CREATION OF RISK (MILLER PRINCIPLE)

Answer 17

Duty can arise where person creates danger but fails to neutralise it.

R v Miller
– 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

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

Question 18

STATUTE

Answer 18

Duty may arise through statute. For example: Road Traffic Acts S13 CJA 1984 – penalty for not appearing before the court when released on bail.

Question 19

PARENT AND CHILD

Answer 19

At common law, parents have a duty to take reasonable care for their children.

R v Gibbons
– 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 based on loco parentis – she assumed responsibility for the child.

R v Nicholls
– 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

SPOUSES

Answer 20

Spouses: Spouses have a common law duty to care for each other.

DPP v O’Brien – 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
——Unlikely duty arise if not cohabitating

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

Question 21

PUBLIC OFFICIALS

Answer 21

Indicatable offence at common law if a public officer wilfully or without reasonable excuse neglects to perform a duty performed by him by common law or statute.

R v Dytham
– 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

Reiterated in DPP v Bartley
– 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 22

CONTRACT

Answer 22

Duty imposed by entering in contract

Brown v Pitwood
– 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.