Actus Reus Flashcards
What is the legal burden of proof in criminal cases?
Rests with the prosecution in almost all situations
They must prove the elements of an offence and disprove defences beyond reasonable doubt
On what occasions will the defendant have a legal burden of proof?
When proving the defences of diminished responsibility and insanity
Must prove these ‘on the balance of probabilities’
The prosecution also has an evidential burden - what does this involve?
They must produce evidence of each element of the offence as part of their case
When will the defendant have an evidential burden?
In proving some defences, like self-defence and alibi – once evidence presented, prosecution must disprove the defence beyond reasonable doubt
Normally, it is enough for D to enter the witness box and provide some details of the defence - this satisfies the evidential burden
What is the actus reus and what, generally speaking, will be need to be proven for it to be made out?
Guilty act - all elements of crime except those relating to D’s state of mind
Almost always involves a conduct element
May be certain circumstances in existence at time of conduct (lack of consent in sexual offences)
Certain consequences may need to be proven (death of a person for crime of murder)
What is the general position around omissions in criminal law?
No criminal liability for failing to act
Exceptions to position on omissions?
i) Statutory offences
- Failing to stop after a road traffic collision as an example
ii) Common law exceptions arise where D had a duty to act and neglected that duty
- Duty arising from a contract - Doctors to care for their patients; Lifeguards to ensure safety of those using swimming pool
- Special relationship (including a voluntary assumption of care) - Parent and child is a key example
- Having created a dangerous situation, D has a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent the harm from occurring
Causation needs to be proven for result crimes. What are the two main elements of causation?
1) Factual causation - But for D’s behaviour, would the offence have happened?
2) Legal causation
Explain legal causation
- Consequence D caused must be attributable to a culpable act - Means there must be some blameworthiness on the part of D
- Culpable act is more than a minimal cause, it must be an operating and substantial cause, but need not be the sole cause; someone else’s contribution to death won’t alleviate D of responsibility for crime of murder
- D must take the victim as they find them - If the victim has a particular susceptibility, D cannot escape liability for this reason (egg shell skull rule)
What is an intervening act and how does impact causation/AR?
Something between D’s actions and the consequence, which breaks the chain of causation
Means the AR cannot be established
What events will count as an intervening act and break the chain of causation?
An unforeseeable escape - Consider if the acts are so daft as to make them a voluntary act and not a proportionate response to the threat
Negligent medical treatment that was ‘so independent of the defendant’s act’ and ‘so potent in causing death’ that the contribution made by the defendant was rendered insignificant - rare for this to break the chain; has to be ‘palpably wrong’ treatment
Events that are not reasonably foreseeable, like unforeseeable natural events (tide coming in when someone is knocked out on a beach is foreseeable)
What events are unlikely to be intervening acts?
- Interventions by third parties
Generally won’t break the chain of causation unless the one of the two below are satisfied:
1) Was their act free, deliberate and informed? - if yes, chain broken
2) Was their act reasonably foreseeable? - if no, chain broken
Example - Case of Padgett were a police officer shot a hostage – their act was not free and was reasonably foreseeable
- Suicide - These acts will generally not break the chain of causation, except in circumstances where it is not reasonably foreseeable that the victim would act as they did
