actus reus

Question 1

elements of actus reus

Answer 1

Conduct (+ consuquence)
Circumstances
Causation

Question 2

factual cause

Answer 2

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 428)
Key question: did the result come about because of the defendant’s conduct?
‘But for’ test.
If the result would have occurred anyway, there is no factual cause. This fails the causation test, so there is no criminal liability

Question 3

legal cause

Answer 3

“Do they deserve to be guilty of this crime?” - moral reaction
Key question: can the result fairly be considered the defendant’s fault?
1. Conduct must be more than de minimis (more than negligible/ trivial/ significant)

Conduct must be blameworthy - blameworthy conduct must have caused the result

3. Conduct must be an operating cause of the result at the time i.e. the chain of causation must not be broken - topic of intervening events by third party

Question 4

thin skull rule

Answer 4

Owens v Liverpool Corp [1939] 1KB 394Defendants actions would have had a different effect on a different person
Where the victim is unusually vulnerable, does the victim’s vulnerability break the defendant’s chain of causation?
Pre-existing physical conditions

Question 5

intervening events

Answer 5

Where the victim brings about their own harm by attempting to escape the threat posed by the defendant, does the victim’s conduct break the defendant’s chain of causation?

Question 6

drug use

Answer 6

Where the defendant supplies drugs and the victim injects drugs and overdoses and dies, does the victim’s conduct break the defendant’s chain of causation for their death?
whether injecting was a free voluntary and informed choice - then it will break the defendants chain of causation

Cato [1976] 1 All ER 260

Question 7

third party conduct

Answer 7

Pagett [1983] 76 Cr App R 279- Held up in block of flats which was surrounded by police - came out of flats firing at police and police returned fire - it was dark - Pagett used pregnant gf as shield against police - foreseeable consequence of his actions - found as guilty for manslaughter and criminally liable

R v A [2020] EWCA Crim 407 - defendant was clubbing with friends and gave them a lift home - argument broke out and went on hard shoulder on motorway w no hazard lights - a lorry jackknifed into car and killed one of the friends - she could be a legal cause - court of appeal thought it was foreseeable as she did not have her hazard lights on

Question 8

medical cases

Answer 8

medical cases
Will a medical professional’s negligent treatment break the defendant’s chain of causation? No, unless treatment is palpably bad

Question 9

omissions

Answer 9

No ‘Good Samaritan Law’ - we do not have to intercept as could lead to potential liability

three-pronged test (certain offenses where omission can result in liability)

1. The offence is capable of commission by omission;
2. The defendant has a legally recognised duty to act: e.g. - may arrise in contract, statute, family relationship (parent has duty to act) or assumption of care (moving with elderly to care for- undertake to care for someone)
   Miller [1983] 2 AC 161 - (create an endangerment) - public policy perspective - created ‘duty to act based on endangerment’ - homeless person in building - lit cigarette on mattress - caught light and there was lots of danger - criminal damage by fire - upheld that he had a duty to act when he became aware of the fire
   (c) The defendant breached this legally recognised duty.
   If the above requirements are met, then do the tests for causation…