Actus Reus Flashcards
what are the components to establish criminal liability?
o Guilty conduct by D (actus reus)
o Guilty state of mind by D (mens rea)
o Absence of any valid defence
when is the burden of proof on D and what is the standard?
the burden is usually on P, but sometimes this flips to D (i.e. when raising certain defences such as diminished responsibility). When the burden of proof is on D, the standard if the balance of probabilities
D then has to provide sufficient evidence to rely on the defence, and P must then disprove this beyond all reasonable doubt
what is the actus reus?
- The actus reus elements of the offence is anything that doesn’t relate to the state of mind. It is often referred to as ‘guilty act’
where can the actus reus be found?
o Statute
o Common law
what may the AR consist of?
The AR may consist of one or more of the following elements:
o An act (or omission) by D (i.e. a conduct crime)
o Consequences flowing from D’s conduct (i.e. a result crime)
o The existence of certain circumstances at the time of D’s conduct (i.e. circumstance / state of affairs crimes)
explain result crimes
give examples
AR - there is a consequence following from the action
Causation is required
i.e. murder, criminal damage
it is not enough that an individual acted in a certain way, it is about the consequence of their actions
o i.e. murder is about the death of another
o i.e. criminal damage, there must be damage to the property
explain conduct crimes
give examples
AR - there is an act or omission done by D
general conduct is voluntary but in rare instances can be involuntary
i.e. perjury – wilfully making a statement under oath that the accused knows to be untrue
explain state of affairs crimes
give examples
AR - the existence of certain circumstances at the time of D’s conduct
- i.e. being in charge (even sitting in the car and not driving it) of a motor vehicle while unfit due to drink or drugs
this is necessary for public policy
when will D be guilty for an omission?
in other words, in these examples D is under a positive duty to act:
1. Statutory offences
2. Common law offences:
Duty arising out of contract
Special relationship
Creation of a dangerous situation
what is the rule regarding omissions
The general rule is that there is no criminal liability for omissions, therefore a stranger is under no obligation to help another.
There are exceptions to this
re: omissions
explain statutory offences
- The statute defines the AR as an omission i.e. failing to stop after a traffic accident
- Statute imposes a duty on D and a failure to act can lead to prosecution i.e. duty to care for children CA 1989
re: omissions
what are the common law offences?
D will be liable for an omission where the law recognises they had a duty to act and failed to do so, i.e.:
Duty arising out of contract
Special relationship
Creation of a dangerous situation
re: omissions
explain duty arising out of contract
give an example
The duty is owed to the parties to the contract and anyone whose life is endangered by the failure to act
i.e. healthcare professionals – their contract is with the hospital but the duty is also owed to the patients
re: omissions
explain special relationship
give examples
There is a special responsibility between D and V, i.e.:
o Family ties (parents, step children/parents, spouses etc)
o D has assumed responsibility for them (i.e. when someone voluntarily undertakes to care for someone, for example they may be ill)
re: omissions
explain creation of a dangerous situation
give an example
when D creates a dangerous situation that endangers V and they are aware of this, they are under a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent harm from occurring
i.e. if D started a fire, they should call an ambulance. They wouldn’t necessarily need to tackle the blaze
when is causation relevant?
- This is relevant to all result crimes
re: causation
what must P prove?
- P must demonstrate that D’s acts caused the prohibited consequence
re: causation
how is causation dealt with?
- Causation is a part of AR. It should not be dealt with separately.
re: causation
what are the stages?
- Factual causation
- Legal causation
re: causation
what is the general rule as to liability?
D will only be criminally liable if it can be proven in fact and law they have caused harm to the victim
re: causation
explain factual causation
- This is the first stage to be proven. If this cannot be proven, there is no need to establish legal causation - the case has failed.
- D cannot be considered to be the cause of the event if it would have happened in exactly the same way without D’s act or omission. If the result would have happened anyway, D is not liable.
re: causation
what are the rules of legal causation?
this is a combination of different legal rules:
o The consequences must be attributable to a culpable act or omissions
o The culpable act must be more than minimal cause of the consequence
o The culpable act need not be the sole cause
o The accused must take their victim as they find them
Also, the chain of causation must not be broken
re: causation
what is a summary of legal causation?
D’s actions must be a substantial and operating cause of the consequences
the chain of causation must not be broken
you take the victim as you find them
re: causation
give an example related to ‘the culpable act must be more than minimal cause of the consequence’
- i.e. a person visiting a dying relative and hastening their death by chatting to them, so exhausting them, would not have caused the death in law.
re: causation
what happens if the chain of causation is broken?
D will be absolved from liability
re: causation
how can the chain of causation be broken?
o Act committed by V
o An act by another person intervenes between D’s conduct and the result
o An event occurs between D’s conduct and the end result
re: breaking the causation
what is the general rule re ‘act committed by V’?
legal causation will not be established if V does something after D’s initial act but before the consequence
re: breaking the causation (act committed by V)
what is the position where V does not seek medical help?
o If V decided not to seek medical attention but died from their injuries, D would still likely be liable
re: breaking the causation (act committed by V)
what is the position where V suffers with a mental condition?
o If V suffered from a mental condition that affected their decision, the court may find D liable by relying on the thin skull rule
re: breaking the causation (act committed by V)
what will the court consider in escape cases?
Whether the escape was in the range of reasonable responses to be expected of a V in that situation;
Whether V’s response is proportionate to the threat or whether it was so daft as to be a voluntary act; and
The fact V is acting in the agony of the moment without time for thought or deliberation
re: breaking the causation (act committed by V)
what will the court consider where V commits suicide?
In some cases, if V commits suicide as a result of D’s actions, D may be liable under the thin skull rule.
the court will look at similar things to escape cases
re: breaking the causation (act of a third party)
what is the general rule?
D will not be liable if the third party’s intervening act was either free, deliberate and informed OR not reasonably foreseeable
re: breaking the causation (act of a third party)
what is the position in regard to medical negligence?
only the most extraordinary and unusual cases of medical treatment would break he chain of causation
re: breaking the causation (act of a third party)
when will negligent medical treatment break the chain of causation?
negligent medical treatment that was ‘so independent of the defendant’s act’, ‘palpably wrong’ and ‘so potent in causing death’ that the contribution made by the defendant was rendered insignificant
re: breaking the causation (act of a third party)
what happens to liability if medical negligence does break the chain of causation?
- If successful, liability would transfer onto the medical professional.
re: breaking the causation (act of a third party)
when will negligent medical treatment not break the chain of causation?
o If the original injury is still the ‘operating and substantial’ cause of death, the chain of causation will not be broken
re: breaking the chain of causation
explain intervening event
give an example
- An event will break the chain of causation is it is not foreseeable. This could be a natural event or non-natural
Sam hits his sister leaving her unconscious on a beach. A freak flash of thunder kills her. This is not foreseeable and so the chain of causation is broken. However, if she was swept away and drowned, this would be reasonably foreseeable
