Actus reus Flashcards
criminal law paper 1
What is meant by actus reus?
The actus reus refers to the physical element of a crime, which can be an act, omission, or state of affairs.
How are conduct crimes and result crimes different?
Conduct crimes focus on the prohibited behaviour itself, whereas result crimes require a specific outcome caused by the defendant’s actions.
What does Hill v Baxter tell us about the guilty act?
It establishes that a defendant must act voluntarily to be held liable; involuntary actions, such as those caused by being attacked by a swarm of bees while driving, do not constitute a guilty act.
What is the general rule in relation to omissions?
The general rule is that omissions do not usually amount to criminal liability unless there is a legal duty to act.
When will an omission, in general terms, be criminal?
An omission will be criminal when the defendant is under a legal duty to act, such as through a relationship, contract, statute, or assumption of responsibility.
Why was the omission criminal in R v Stone and Dobinson?
The defendants assumed responsibility for a vulnerable person (Stone’s sister) by taking her into their home and failing to provide adequate care, which led to her death.
Why was D’s omission criminal in R v Miller?
The defendant created a dangerous situation by accidentally starting a fire and then failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the harm.
Give an example of a state of affairs forming the actus reus of an offence.
An example is being found in a prohibited location, as in the case of R v Larsonneur, where the defendant was involuntarily brought to the UK and charged with being an illegal alien.
What does the coincidence rule state?
The actus reus and mens rea of a crime must occur at the same time for liability to arise.
How did the court justify finding coincidence in Fagan v MPC?
The court treated the act of driving onto the police officer’s foot and the omission of failing to move as a continuing act, allowing the mens rea to coincide with the actus reus.
How did the court justify finding coincidence in R v Thabo Meli?
The court treated the series of acts (beating the victim and disposing of the body, mistakenly believing him dead) as one continuous transaction, so the mens rea carried through to the actus reus.
