Actus Reus

Question 1

Actus reus

Answer 1

A criminal act that is done- positive

Question 2

The voluntary nature of actus reus

Answer 2

If the defendant has no control over their actions, then they have not committed actus reus. The act or omission must be voluntary on the defendant.

Question 3

Voluntary nature of actus reus- cases

Answer 3

Mitchell - voluntary
Larsonneur - involuntary

Question 4

Causation

Answer 4

A principle used to determine the absence or presence of actus reus. If missing or lacking, the individual will not be guilty.

Question 5

Factual causation

Answer 5

‘But for’ test
The defendant can only be guilty if the consequence would not have happened ‘but for’ the defendant’s conduct or actions.

Question 6

Legal causation

Answer 6

‘De minimus’ rule
The defendant’s act must be more than a minimal contribution of the consequence.

Question 7

Factual and Legal causation - cases

Answer 7

Pagette - ‘but for’ test established
Hughes - legal causation, no factual
Kimsey - ‘de minimus’ rule established

Question 8

Causation - the thin skull rule

Answer 8

The defendants must take the victim as they find them. If the victim has a physical or mental illness that makes their victimisation worse than how another person would be victimised, the consequence is more severe for the defendant.

Question 9

The thin skull rule- case

Answer 9

Blaue

Question 10

Chain of causation

Answer 10

Can be broken by:
- 3rd party actions
- the victim’s own actions
- a natural event

Question 11

Chain of causation - reactions

Answer 11

The victim must have a proportional reaction to crime. A reasonably foreseeable reaction is valid, an unreasonable one isn’t.

Question 12

Proportional reactions - cases

Answer 12

Roberts - reasonably foreseeable
Marjoram - reasonably foreseeable
William v. Davis - unreasonable

Question 13

Chain of causation - medical negligence

Answer 13

Medical treatment usually won’t break the chain of causation unless it is a sufficiently independent act. Doctors do their best under high pressure and courts take that in account. Courts usually focus on the significance of the defendant’s actions.

Question 14

Medical negligence - cases

Answer 14

Cheshire - d held liable (significant actions)
Smith - d held liable (substantial cause)
Jordan - doctors were held liable (sufficiently independent act)

Question 15

Chain of causation - medical cases

Answer 15

Malcherek - switching off a life support machine by a doctor when it has been decided the victim is brain dead does not break the chain of causation.
Dear - the wounds were an operating and significant cause, the jury was entitled to convict the defendant. Even if the victim basically committed suicide by allowing the wounds to bleed, the wounds were still the cause of death.