Actus Reus Flashcards
What are the elements of a criminal offence?
ACTUS REUS + MENS REA + NO DEFENCE
Are actus reus and mens rea always required for the commission of a crime?
Actus reus is always required. Mens rea is not an element of strict liability and criminal negligence offences.
Definition of Actus Reus
The external element of a crime, the conduct or physical action, its result and the surrounding circumstances. Actus reus also may include a failure to act or an ongoing state of affairs (e.g. possession of drugs, being drunk and incapable in a public place).
What is the difference between conduct crimes and results crimes?
Conduct crimes criminalise an act – eg dangerous driving, possession of firearms. Result crimes criminalise the consequences of an act – eg dangerous driving causing death, murder.
Name the six circumstances in which an act of omission may give rise to liability.
(i) Special relationship between accused and victim
(ii) Voluntary assumption of responsibility
(iii) Creation of a danger
(iv) Duty under contract
(v) Misconduct of an officer of justice
(vi) Statutory duty to act
Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 - s.9
(1) A person shall be guilty of an offence if he or she has information which he or she knows or believes might be of material assistance in—
(a) preventing the commission by any other person of a serious offence, or
(b) securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any other person for a serious offence,
and fails without reasonable excuse to disclose that information as soon as it is practicable to a member of the Garda Síochána.
(EXAMPLE OF STATUTORY DUTY TO ACT)
P McCutcheon, “Omissions and Criminal Liability” - What are the two suggestions the author gives on how Irish law can better address the general duty to act?
- Statutory rescue duty (good samaritan laws)
- Judicially/legislatively expand scope of crimes which can be committed by ommission
A . Ashworth “The Scope of Criminal Liability for Omissions” - What are the two contrasting positions posed by Ashworth on omissions?
- Conventional view: Criminal law should be reluctant to impose liability for omissions except in clear and serious cases. (Protective of negative liberty - the freedom NOT to do something.)
- Social responsibility view: It is fair to require citizens to act in some limited and specific situations. (Individual autonomy should not be celebrated as a supreme value.
A . Ashworth “The Scope of Criminal Liability for Omissions” - What are two new duties the author suggests developing?
- Assisting those in peril
- Assisting law enforcement (to an extent)
What are five traditional common law objections to the criminalisation of omissions?
- The law should place value on personal autonomy and for negative liberties (the freedom to not to have to do something).
- The law is mainly designed to penalize the bad, and not to incentivize good.
- Difficulty of assigning fault for an omission.
- Liability shouldn’t be “governed by chance.” Is it fair that I might happen to come across a citizen in peril on my way to a concert, while others might not?
- It could result in “citizen busybodies” - where does push to help others end?
ACTUS REUS + MENS REA + NO DEFENCE
What are the elements of a criminal offence?
The external element of a crime, the conduct or physical action, its result and the surrounding circumstances. Actus reus also may include a failure to act or an ongoing state of affairs (e.g. possession of drugs, being drunk and incapable in a public place).
Definition of Actus Reus
If a grown-up chooses to undertake the charge of a human creature and then lets it die by their negligence, that person is guilty of manslaughter
R v Nichols (1874)
Nellie Gibbons starved to death by father’s girlfriend. Starving was intentional: girlfriend was given money to feed Nellie, but girlfriend (Proctor) refused to feed child out of hatred. Proctor found guilty (of manslaughter because of the special relationship between her and the child, which she had voluntarily assumed.
R v Gibbons and Proctor (1919)
Stone (age 67, partially deaf and totally blind) and Dobinson (age 43 girlfriend, some kind of cognitive disability) lived together. Stone’s sister, Fanny, came to stay. She locked herself in her room and appears to have suffered from some kind of anorexia. She refused to eat and eventually died. Stone was held responsible because of blood relation to Fanny and Dobinson because she assumed responsibility in her attempted to bathe and feed Fanny. While they did “make efforts to care” they should have done more. Guilty of gross negligence manslaughter.
Case established there is an objective standard of care to meet, apparently regardless of whether or not one is able to meet that standard.
R v Stone and Dobinson (1977)
