Actus Reus Flashcards
What is Actus Reus?
Actus Reus refers to the physical component of the crime, involving the defendant’s voluntary act or omission that leads to a prohibited consequence
Examples include physical acts like assault or theft, or omissions like failing to provide care when legally required.
What must the prosecution show regarding Actus Reus?
The prosecution must show that the accused engaged in an act or omission that is unlawful under the criminal code
What is causation in criminal law?
What are the two types?
Causation establishes that the defendant’s conduct directly caused the harmful consequence (a relationship)
It includes factual causation (the ‘but for’ test) and legal causation (significant and operative cause).
What are the two types of causation, explain?
- Factual Causation = The “but for” test - would the harm have occurred ‘but for’ the defendant’s actions?
- Legal Causation = The defendant’s actions must be a significant and operative cause of the result, even if other factors contributed
What is the standard of proof in criminal cases?
The standard of proof required is ‘beyond reasonable doubt,’ meaning the prosecution must convince the court that there is no reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt
What are the 5 main duties of a defence lawyer?
The defence lawyer represents the defendant’s interests:
1) Challenges the prosecution’s case
2) Protects the defendant’s rights
3) Presents defences
4) Creates reasonable doubt
5) Negotiates with the prosecution.
What are the elements of a crime?
The elements of a crime include Actus Reus (external element) and Mens Rea (internal element).
What 3 main things does Actus Reus encompass?
Includes:
1) conduct (affirmative action) or omission
2) certain circumstances that make the conduct criminal
3) for some crimes, a specific result is required
What are 2 examples of circumstances in relation to actus reus?
- Theft: Requires that property belongs to someone else; the circumstance of ownership is essential
- Sexual Offences: Sexual intercourse without consent is the criminal circumstance required to constitute an offence
What are the 3 actus reus crimes that do not require active conduct?
- Possession Offences: Crimes like drug possession require only that the individual has an illegal substance, regardless of action
- State of Affairs Offences: Certain offences are based on an individual’s status or presence in a particular situation
- Membership crimes: Being a member of a banned organisation can fulfil actus reus.
What is omission liability?
Omission liability refers to holding someone criminally liable for failing to act rather than for an active wrongdoing
Cases for omission liability?
Examples include R v Gibbins and Proctor (failure to feed a child) and R v Miller (failure to act after creating a dangerous situation)
What makes up the Actus Reus?
Actus Reus includes:
- Conduct: The behaviour or actions of the defendant (or failure to act, in omissions).
- Circumstance: The context that may make conduct criminal (e.g., property belonging to another for theft).
- Result: Where the crime requires a specific outcome caused by the conduct (e.g., death in murder cases).
What is the relationship between the Actus Reus and Mens Rea?
In most cases, both Actus Reus (the physical act) and Mens Rea (the mental state) must be present for liability.
The prosecution must prove that the defendant’s guilty mind coincided with the wrongful conduct, establishing a clear intent or recklessness to commit the crime
5 situations where there is a legal duty to act
- Statutory/Offence-Specific Duty: Certain laws mandate action (e.g., providing a breath test).
- Contractual Duty: A failure to act under a contract, as seen with lifeguards or caregivers.
- Familial Duty: Parent or caregiver duties to provide care.
- Assumption of Responsibility: Voluntarily taking responsibility for another’s welfare.
- Creation of a Dangerous Situation: If a person creates a dangerous situation, they are obligated to prevent harm.
What are the 3 requirements for omissions liability?
- A legal duty to act: There must be a recognised legal duty to take action.
- Failure to fulfil the duty: The person must have failed to take the necessary action to fulfil their duty.
- Resulting harm: The failure must contribute to or cause harm or the prohibited outcome specified by law.
What is a motorist offence capable of being committed by omission?
Failing to provide a breath specimen when required under the Road Traffic Act (1988)
What is the key principle of causation in law?
For the defendant (D) to be found liable, D’s conduct (or omission) must have caused the prohibited result (e.g., harm, injury, or death)
What happens if causation cannot be established?
If it cannot be shown beyond reasonable doubt that D’s actions (or omission) caused the result, then D cannot be convicted of the result crime
What are the two parts of causation?
Causation must satisfy both factual causation and legal causation
What is factual causation?
Factual causation assesses whether D’s conduct or omission, in fact, caused the result
What is the ‘but for’ test?
‘But for D’s conduct or omission, would the result have occurred?’ If the answer is ‘no’, factual causation is established
What is a key case example for factual causation?
In R v White [1910], D poisoned his mother’s drink, but she died of an unrelated heart attack. Thus, D was not the factual cause of her death
What if there are multiple causes in factual causation?
When more than one person contributes to the result, multiple parties may be found factually liable
What is the acceleration principle in factual causation?
D’s actions must have accelerated the result, meaning they brought about the result sooner than it would have occurred naturally
How can omissions establish factual causation?
Factual causation can apply to omissions if D had a legal duty to act, and if they had fulfilled their duty to act they would have prevented the result
What is legal causation?
Legal causation addresses whether D is fairly responsible for the result in the eyes of the law
What are the three criteria for legal causation?
D’s conduct must be substantial, blameworthy, and operative
What is a key case example for blameworthy cause?
In R v Dalloway [1847], D was not legally liable because his conduct was not blameworthy in causing the death
What is the concept of novus actus interveniens?
A novus actus interveniens is a new, independent act that occurs after D’s conduct and before the result, which can break the chain of causation
What is the eggshell skull rule?
Victims must be taken as they are found, meaning V’s pre-existing vulnerabilities will not break the chain of causation
What is the chain of causation?
Refers to the unbroken link between D’s actions (or omissions) and the final result
What 4 types of acts can intervene and potentially break the chain of causation?
- Interventions by D
- Intervention by natural events
- Third-party actions
- Victim’s own actions
What 2 main criteria do courts assess when there is intervention by the victim?
1) Foreseeability: Was V’s response a foreseeable reaction to D’s actions?
2) Voluntariness: Was V’s action free, voluntary, and informed?
What was the outcome of R v Michael (1840)?
D was held liable for the death of the baby despite the child’s unwitting intervention in administering poison
What are the conditions under which a doctor’s intervention breaks the chain of causation?
A doctor’s intervention will only break the chain if the treatment was ‘palpably wrong’ or if V’s injuries had largely healed
What was the ruling in R v Jordan (1956)?
The court held that the doctor’s action was ‘palpably wrong’ and independent of the initial injury, breaking the chain of causation
What was the ruling in R v Smith (1959)?
D was held liable because the original wound was still a significant cause of death, despite poor medical treatment
What was the ruling in R v Cheshire (1991)?
The court found that the medical intervention did not break the causal link as the original injury still played a substantial role
What was the outcome of R v Pagett (1983)?
D was held liable as the police’s act of shooting was not seen as voluntary enough to break the chain of causation
What was the ruling in R v Empress Car Co Ltd [1999]?
D was held liable despite an unidentified third party’s act, as the act was a foreseeable risk
What was the critical legal issue in R v Wallace (Berlinah) [2018]?
Whether V’s suicide could be attributed to D’s actions or if it constituted a novus actus interveniens, breaking the chain of causation
What did the Court of Appeal conclude in R v Wallace (Berlinah) [2018] regarding V’s decision?
V’s decision to undergo euthanasia broke the chain of causation, but the court recognised that in other contexts, suicide might not break the casual chain
What moral judgment challenges arise in causation cases like Wallace?
Courts must decide what is ‘fair’ in law and how to account for the victim’s suffering and vulnerabilities
What is the burden of proof in causation by omission?
It requires certainty that the harm would not have occurred ‘but for’ D’s omission
What was the ruling in R v Broughton [2020] regarding omission?
The court held that D’s omission did not cause the harm as there was still a 10% chance V would have died regardless
What does the Law Commission’s draft bill propose regarding causation?
It suggests simplifying causation principles to reduce ambiguity and inconsistency in the law
What are the pros of codifying causation rules?
Predictability and accessibility
What are the cons of codifying causation rules?
Disadvantages may include reduced flexibility in unique cases
