Actus Reus Flashcards
Automatism
Sane automatism is a complete defence, insane automatism provides the special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity
It is where one lacks voluntary control over their actions and is said to not have the capacity to control their actions
- A-G’s Ref (No 2 of 1992) [1994] QB 91
HGV driver steers into harm shoulder - drove down it several miles- hits broken down vehicle - kills 2 people - expert evidence that driver was in condition of ‘driving without awareness’ - convicted on appeal by crown
for defence of automatism a ‘total destruction of voluntary control is required, if any control is regained or retained - the defence is no applicable
Omission
The absence of an act - failure to do an act
Requirements for an omission to occur
1, Duty of care established
2, Defendant was grossly negligent in their duty
3, the offence occurred because of such negligence
held in Stone and Dobinson
** Stone & Dobinson [1977] QB 354; [1977] 2 All ER 34
Stone is a partially deaf, almost blind, low intelligence old man- Married to D - Stone’ sister comes to visit - she lived in a room with no ventilation, toilet or washing facilities except a bucket - denied herself proper meals -spent days at a time in her room - within 3yrs - helpless infirm - doesn’t leave bed - D advised by neighbor to go to social services whilst they were cleaning sister - advised to get a doctor - they couldn’t find the sister’s doctor - efforts stop there - sister dies from toxemia - with proper medical care she likely survives - both convicted of manslaughter
For the absence of an act to qualify as an omission, there ‘must be a reckless disregard of danger (to the health and welfare of the infirm person), mere inadvertence is not enough’
Also held that indifference to an obvious risk and appreciation of such risk, coupled with a determination nevertheless to run it, are both examples of recklessness
** Miller (1983) 2 AC 161
Miller (D) sets fire to a mattress as he fell asleep whilst smoking in the house he was sleeping in (Not his house) - he awakens - makes no effort to extinguish the fire- moves to diff room - fire goes on to cause £800 worth of damage- convicted of arson due to omission
one’s failure to act upon a danger one has created can qualify for the actus reus for an omission
One can establish a duty of care if one creates a danger or dangerous situation through one’s acts
- Evans [2009] EWCA Crim 650
G gives heroin to her half-sister (victim, C) - C injected herself and collapsed - both mother and daughter in the house- both aware of C taking heroin and collapsing - do not seek help in fear C would get into trouble - she developed overdose symptoms - they still do nothing - she dies - convicted of manslaughter
Follows Miller principle- if one creates a dangerous situation, one enters a duty of care and so can be criminally liable for an offence by an omission - in this case: G
Where one has a personal relationship and accordingly the victim is trusting of the care and the protection from one , one enters a duty of care and so can be held liable for an offence by an omission - in this case -the mother
- Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789
Boy left in persistent vegetative state - no hope of recovery - life was being maintained by artificial feeding - doctors withdraw artificial feeding - patient dies - dad and family had given their approval and requested this occur - found not liable to an offence - doctor found of not doing an unlawful act
Case held that removal of life support does not amount to murder as there is no duty to act as the treatment not in patient’s best interests
Case draws a fine line between acts where medical professional stops doing something to allow the patient to die - omission - legal
vs
acts where medical professional actively does something that allows patient to die - i.e injection of drugs etc - euthanasia - this is illegal
Distinction between omission and an act criticised as first one is only an omission in legal sense- physically they still do the act of removing artificial feeder/life support etc
Causation
The rules which decide whether a defendant is responsible for a harm
Cato [1976] 1 WLR 110
D convicted of manslaughter- victim (F) dies from being injected with heroin - F gets D to continue to inject him with heroin but mix it with other things too- F dies in morning due to swelling of lungs and respiratory system
regardless of the consent of the individual if one chooses to perform an act that may potentially cause harm and is considered as acting “reckless” in doing so, one is held accountable and so can be found liable for the consequences of the act
By injecting drugs into F, Cato was acting recklessly and the consent of F is irrelevant - Cato can still be held accountable to his actions to F
- Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279
D holds girl hostage - shoots at police officer, girl used as human shield -police fire back, girl shot and killed- D convicted of manslaughter - chain of causation not broken by police shooting back - not voluntary act- it was a reasonable act of self-preservation
Jury normally do not need to be directed on causation - it was enough to tell them that the accused’s act must have contributed significantly to the result
If one commits on or more unlawful acts , leading to the harm or death of x. In that case, even if one did not direct their acts at x , one can still be held accountable to the consequences that happen to x as a result of their unlawful and dangers actions.
- Hughes [2013] UKSC 56
D was driving unlicensed + uninsured when another car crashed into him- other driver dies and is found to be on heroin at the time - nature of crash entirely V’s fault - D not to blame for crash objectively - supreme court find him to be not guilty
But for causation principle does not always amount to enough for a legally effective cause
D’s driving was not in law a cause of V’s death as his mannner of driving could not be faulted
Novus actus interveniens
It is a new intervening act - if there is one then it will break the chain of causation - applies where D has acted but a second intervening act occurs, meaning D no longer has caused the result
2 possibilities for it:
If V or 3rd party performs a free informed and voluntary act which breaks chain of causation or
if result was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of D’s act
** Cheshire [1991] 1 WLR 844
Medical case
Victim is shot by D in stomach and leg - V goes to hospital- needs surgery - develops respiratory problems - tracheotomy tube inserted into windpipe for 4 weeks - 2 months after surgery V dies - found to have obstructed windpipe near tracheotomy scar site - D convicted of murder
Beldlam LJ - for D to responsible his acts need not to be the sole or even main cause of death - it is sufficient that his acts contributed significantly to the result
D’s responsibility only excluded when negligent treatment was so independent of his acts and so potent in causing death that it renders his acts as insignificant
- Malcherek [1981] 1 WLR 690
D stabs victim ( his wife) - Later she is placed on life support machine - doctors disconnect life support machine determining she is brain dead - D convicted of murder
Where doctor unplugs life support machine etc where defendant is regarded as brain dead, this does not prevent the person who inflicted original injury from being responsible for V’s death
- Jordan (1956) 40 Cr App R 152
D stabs victim - victim taken to hospital - Victim dies - initially said cause of death is due to broncho-pneumonia following penetrating abdominal injury - but later evidence introduced that it was the doctor’s introduction of drug terramycin when victim was intolerant to it - conviction quashed - chain of causation held to be broken
Where the wound inflicted by the defendant does not cause death and is no longer an operating factor of the death due to incorrect medical treatment - then is the chain of causation said to be broken
- Smith [1959] 2 QB 35
D is a private soldier - stabs someone in barracks - confesses to the stabbing - but otw to med tent - victim is dropped twice + receives treatment shown to be correct - convicted of murder
even if there is insufficient medical treatment if the victim dies from wounds inflicted by one, as long as those wounds remain an operating cause of death , one is guilty of murder, chain of causation is not broken
** Kennedy (No 2) [2007] UKHL 38
D prepared a syringe with heroin and handed it to B (victim) - injects themself - D walks out of the room - B dies shortly after - D convicted of manslaughter but conviction quashed on appeal
Held that B made a free informed and voluntary choice in injecting himself - Chain of causation was broken
Criminal law generally assumes existence of free will- there are exceptions…… but informed adults of sound mind are treated as autonomous beings able to make their own decisions how they will act
Contrast with Cato- D injects V so he is guilty - had Kennedy injected B he would be guilty
- Blaue [1975] 1 WLR 1411
D stabs young woman - lung pierced - she refuses a blood transfusion due to being a Jehovah’s witness - she was told she would die without it but would have survived with the treatment - dies - D convicted of manslaughter by diminished responsibility
Think skull rule held to still apply to the religion of people - a chain of causation not broken - wound remained an operating cause of death
- Roberts (1972) 56 Cr App R 95
young girl in car with D- D makes unwanted sexual advances; girl jumps out of car and cries for help, she hurts herself falling/jumping out of the car - D convicted of ABH
held that there is no break in chain of causation as victims actions were foreseeable even tho D did not intend for them to happen
Test is - ‘was it the natural result of what the alleged assailant said and did, in the sense that it was something that could reasonably be foreseen as the consequence of what he was saying or doing’
only if V’s actions were so daft and unexpected that no reasonable man could have expected is there a break in chain of causation
- Wallace [2018] EWCA Crim 690
D throws sulfuric acid on Victim (V)- causes disfigurement, paralysis of V, and constant unbearable pain - doctors cannot alleviate pain- V applies for euthanasia - is euthanased- appeal by crown allowed after D acquitted - could find causation - new trial ordered
held that victims’ act was not voluntary decision - due to suffering and pain - ‘forced her’ to want euthanasia
We see a shift in test from ‘substantial and operating’ cause to ‘significant and operating’ cause of death
- Field [2021] EWCA Crim 380
D pretends to be a genuine friend to an old man- (victim, V) - (69)- D slowly begins to start drugging V and suggesting to others V is drinking too much and developing suicidal thoughts- D manipulates V into changing his will to benefit D - D leaves out strong bottle of whiskey one night - V dies from alcohol poisoning and D does nothing to held him
D convicted of murder - held that V’s decisions were not informed - wrongly believed D was his friend and would look after him due to D’s deception
Change from ‘significant cause of death’ to ‘more than minimal’ cause of death - if D’s actions were more than a minimal cause and he had intent to kill, jury can find him guilty
