Actus Reus Flashcards
Q: What is the definition of Actus Reus?
A: Actus Reus is the physical element of a crime, which can be an act, omission, or state of affairs.
Q: What are the three types of Actus Reus?
A:
Voluntary acts – e.g., stabbing someone.
Omissions (failure to act where there is a duty).
State of affairs crimes – where the defendant is found in a prohibited situation (e.g., possession offences).
Q: What is the general rule regarding voluntary acts?
A: The defendant’s actions must be voluntary
Q: Which case established that an act must be voluntary for liability?
A: Hill v Baxter (1958) – A driver who lost control due to a swarm of bees was not acting voluntarily.
Q: What is the general rule on omissions in criminal law?
A: There is no general duty to act, but liability arises if there is a duty to act.
Q: What are the five key situations where a duty to act exists?
Statutory duty – e.g., failure to provide a breath sample (Road Traffic Act 1988).
Contractual duty – e.g., R v Pittwood (1902) (railway gatekeeper failed to shut gate, causing death).
Duty due to a relationship – e.g., R v Gibbins & Proctor (1918) (parent failed to feed child, leading to death).
Assumption of care – e.g., R v Stone & Dobinson (1977) (failed to care for sick relative).
Creating a dangerous situation – e.g., R v Miller (1983) (homeless man set fire to a mattress but did nothing).
Q: What are state of affairs crimes?
A: Crimes where the defendant is found in a prohibited situation without requiring voluntary conduct.
Q: What case shows liability for a state of affairs crime?
A: R v Larsonneur (1933) – A woman was deported to the UK against her will and charged with being an illegal alien, despite her lack of choice.
Q: What is the difference between factual causation and legal causation?
A:
Factual causation – The defendant’s conduct must be the actual cause of the consequence (‘but for’ test).
Legal causation – The defendant’s actions must be a substantial and operating cause of the harm.
Q: What is the ‘but for’ test?
A: The harm would not have occurred but for the defendant’s actions.
Q: Which case demonstrates the ‘but for’ test?
A: R v White (1910) – The defendant put poison in his mother’s drink, but she died of a heart attack before drinking it. He was not guilty of murder (but guilty of attempted murder).
Q: What does legal causation require?
A:
The defendant’s actions must be:
A substantial cause (not minimal).
An operating cause (still active at time of harm).
Q: Which case shows legal causation?
A: R v Smith (1959) – A soldier stabbed another, and negligent medical treatment contributed to death. The stabbing was still the operating and substantial cause, so Smith was liable.
Q: What can break the chain of causation?
A:
Actions of a third party – e.g., medical negligence.
Victim’s own actions – e.g., escape attempts.
Unforeseeable natural events.
Q: What case shows that medical treatment usually does not break causation?
A: R v Cheshire (1991) – Even though poor medical treatment contributed to death, the original shooting was still the substantial cause.
Q: What case shows that grossly negligent medical treatment can break causation?
A: R v Jordan (1956) – The victim was given excessive fluids by doctors, which was an independent cause of death, breaking the chain.
Q: What case shows that a victim’s own actions do not break causation if they are reasonable?
A: R v Roberts (1971) – A girl jumped from a car to escape sexual assault, suffering injuries. The defendant was liable because her reaction was reasonably foreseeable.
Q: What case shows that extreme victim actions can break causation?
A: R v Williams & Davis (1992) – A hitchhiker jumped out of a moving car to avoid a robbery and died. The act was not foreseeable, breaking causation.
Q: What is the thin skull rule?
A: The defendant must take their victim as they find them, meaning pre-existing weaknesses do not break causation.
Q: What case established the thin skull rule?
A: R v Blaue (1975) – A Jehovah’s Witness refused a blood transfusion after being stabbed. The defendant was liable for her death, despite her refusal of treatment.
