actus reus

Question 1

actus reus

Answer 1

the physical element of a crime
(usually something the defendant does but in certain situations failure to act is sufficient)

Question 2

conduct crime

Answer 2

the accused conduct forms the offence, and there’s no required consequence from that conduct
(e.g. drink driving as it is a crime without even causing damage to someone or something else)

Question 3

consequence crime

Answer 3

the consequence element must happen for the offence to be committed.

requires proof that the defendants actus reus (e.g. the assault) caused the prohibited consequence (e.g. the actual bodily harm)
- (e.g. offence of assault with the consequence of actual bodily harm)

Question 4

voluntary acts

Answer 4

the omission must be voluntary on the part of the defendant.
- therefore if the defendant has no control over their actions then they haven’t committed the actus reus.

Question 5

briefly explain the Hill v baxter (1958) case to support the idea of voluntary acts

Answer 5

defendant ignored road sign and crashed but he tried to claim he had no memory of before the crash because he was in automation.
This was insufficient evidence as his actus reus was still considered voluntary.

Question 6

state of affairs case

Answer 6

the prosecution does not need to prove any specific voluntary act or omission, as long as the defendant’s state of affairs (combination of circumstances at the time) is criminalised under the law.

Question 7

briefly explain the R v Larsonneur (1933) case supporting the idea of state of affairs cases

Answer 7

she committed illegal immigration (as a French immigrant from Ireland) but she was deported back to the UK against her will by the Irish police.
actus reus occurred due to state of affairs

Question 8

omission

Answer 8

the failure to act (e.g. failure to complete your contractual duty of your job)

Question 9

what are the 6 situations where an omission can give rise to liability in criminal law

Answer 9

• an act of parliament creates an offence involving an omission
• a contractual duty to act exists
• a duty exists because of a relationship
• a duty towards the victim has been taken on voluntarily by the accused
• a duty towards the victim arises from an official position
• a duty towards the victim arises because the defendant has set in motion a chain of events

Question 10

give an example of when an act of parliament creates an offence involving omission

Answer 10

regulatory offences (e.g. food safety)

Question 11

give an example case of when a contractual duty to act exists (involving omission)

Answer 11

R v Pittwood (1902)
defendant was a railway crossing keeper who forgot to close the gate.
omission can be the actus reus when there is a contractual duty.

Question 12

give an example case of when a duty exists because of a relationship (involving omission)

Answer 12

R v Gibbons & Proctor (1918)
father and partner failed to feed child so child died.
an omission can be the actus reus when there’s a parental relationship.

Question 13

give 2 example cases of when a duty towards the victim has been taken on voluntarily by the accused (involving omission)

Answer 13

R v Stone & Robinson (1977)
defendant took over care for Stones Elderly sister and failed to care for her so she died.
omission can be the actus reus when defendant took on the duty voluntarily

R v Evans (2009)
mother & half sister failed to seek medical help for daughter who overdosed.
mother = omission of parental duty
sister = created situation by supplying drugs

Question 14

give an example case of when a duty towards the victim arises from an official position (involving omission)

Answer 14

R v Dytham (1979)
police officer failed to intervene in a violent attack.
he had the omission as a duty to act due to his contractual duty as a police officer.

Question 15

give an example case of when a duty towards the victim arises because the defendant has set in motion a chain of events (involving omission)

Answer 15

R v Miller (1983)
squatter set fire to bed accidentally and failed to extinguish fire or seek help.
defendant created situation as an omission of a chain of events giving him responsibility.

Question 16

what the 3 things the prosecution has to show when a consequence must be proved?

Answer 16

• factual causation
• legal causation
• there was no intervening act which broke the chain of causation

Question 16

factual causation

Answer 16

the defendants conduct was the factual cause of that consequence.
they can only be guilty if the consequence would not have happened “but for” the defendants conduct.

Question 17

give 2 cases to support factual causation and the “but for” test

Answer 17

R v Pagett (1983)
defendant used girlfriend as human shield.
‘but for’ defendants actions victim wouldn’t have died.

R v White (1910)
defendant poisoned mothers drink but died of heart attack before drinking it.
‘but for’ test not satisfied as defendant wasn’t factual cause of death.

Question 18

legal causation & what are the 2 things to consider within this

Answer 18

defendants conduct was in law the cause of that consequence.
‘think skull rule’ and the chain of causation

Question 19

what is the ‘thin skull rule’?

Answer 19

defendant must take the victim as he finds them
(even if the defendant is unaware of a physical or medical condition that makes the injury more serious, they’re still liable)

Question 20

give an example case to support the idea of the ‘think skull rule’ which is part of legal causation

Answer 20

R v Blaue (1975)
defendant stabbed girl, she refused blood transfusion due to religious beliefs & died
Defendant guilty as the ‘think skull rule’ says you have to take the victim as you found them.

Question 21

briefly explain the chain of causation

Answer 21

the link between the act and the consequence (between the factual and legal causation) which must remain unbroken if there is to be criminal liability.
In order to break the chain the intervening act must be sufficiently independent of the defendants conduct and sufficiently serious.

Question 22

what are the 3 ways chain of causation can be broken by?

Answer 22

an act of a third party (a doctor)
victims own act (jumping from a moving car)
a natural but predictable event (hurricane)

Question 23

briefly explain 3 cases to support the chain of causation

Answer 23

R v Smith (1959)
defendant stabbed soldiers lung and doctors gave him artificial respiration & died.
defendant guilty as stab wound was the overwhelming cause of death (significant and operative cause)

R v Cheshire (1991)
victim shot in thigh and stomach, trouble breathing so given tracheotomy but had complications doctor didn’t notice so they died.
defendant still liable for death, even though original wounds weren’t life threatening.

R v Jordan (1956)
stabbed in stomach, suffered allergic reaction to antibiotics given by doctors twice & died.
actions of doctor were held as intervening act of a third party breaking the chain of causation & making defendant not liable.

Question 24

give an example case of the victims own act being seen as reacting in a foreseeable way

Answer 24

R v Roberts (1971)
girl jumped out car window to escape sexual advances and got injured.
defendant liable for injuries as victims reaction to his attack were reasonably foreseeable in relation to the threat.

Question 25

give an example case of when a victims own act is unreasonable which broke the chain of causation

Answer 25

hitch hiker jumped out of moving car and died of head injuries.
victims act not in proportion to threat and so injuries weren’t caused by defendant.