Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Crime (Henriette) > Actus Reus > Flashcards

Actus Reus Flashcards

1
Q

What is actus reus?

A

Any Act, omission or state of affairs that is laid down in the definition of a particular crime along with any surrounding circumstances and any consequences of the act/omission requires by that definition

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Result crimes

A

Require the production of a prescribed consequence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Conduct crimes

A

Require the mere adoption of a particular conduct

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

R v Deller

A

Actus reus requires defined circumstances:
D sold his car to P stating that car was “free from encumbrances”, was however believing to be lying to P. Unbeknownst to D, he was actually telling the truth and could not be convicted of making false pretences

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

When does the actus reus no conduct at all?

A

State of affairs: like being in possession of controlled drugs or being in charge of a vehicle while inebriated/drugged

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Bell (per Lord Goff)

A

D’s conduct must be voluntary - the muscular movements by D constituting the relevant conduct must be under control of D’s conscious mind automatism
Like: driver attacked by bees, sudden blinding pain, sudden blackout

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Bratty v A-G for Northern Ireland (Lord Denning orbiter)

A

Lord Denning includes sleepwalking as involuntary Act (automatism)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Leicester v Pearson

A

Car was knocked onto zebra crossing by speeding car behind him –> not voluntary, no responsibility

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Statutory provisions for omissions

A

Motoring offences predominate - characteristically conduct crimes which penalise failure to act rather than the resulting harm
Example: s.19 Terrorism Act 2000 (failure to disclose information about terrorism)
Liability can also be precluded for omissions: Criminal Attempt Act 1981

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Dytham

A

Offence of misconduct in public office can be committed through an omission - uniformed police officer failed to intervene when he saw a man being kicked to death 30 metres away

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

A-G’s Reference No 3 (2003)

A

Misconduct in public office arising from an omission - hospital staff informed police officers that the victim’s breathing had to be monitored but they failed to do so

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Common law treatment of omission

A

Generally, common law does not impose any requirement on citizens to act unless there is a duty - the stranger is free to watch the blind man walk over the cliff or the child drown in a few inches of water

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

When might the court consider imposing a duty?

A

1) Close relationship
2) assumption of responsibility
3) doctor-patient relationship
4) Contractual duty
5) creation of a dangerous situation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Gibbins and Proctor

A

Father was convicted of murdering his child through omitting to act - failed to get medical assistance and the child died

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Obligation to help your spouse?

A

Unclear. Case law seems to suggest only when they are helplessly dependent on you - not clear for able-bodied lovers

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Hood

A

Obligation to help your spouse when they are “helplessly” dependent on you - husband was convicted of gross negligence manslaughter after failing to get medical assistance for 3 weeks after his osteoporosis suffering wife fell

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Stone and Dobinson

A

A duty to Act can be assumed through albeit pathetic attempts to care for someone.
S’s younger sister Fanny who had anorexia came to live with the couple (“ineffectual and inadequate”, she was also partially blind and deaf). They made a half-hearted attempt to care for her - washed her, left her food, tried to call for help but ceased to provide care leading up to her death

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Ruttell

A

Applied Stone and Dobinson - assumption of responsibility.
V became unconscious having taken drugs and D took various steps to revive him but panicked and left him outside where V died of hypothermia and opiate intoxication

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Wacker

A

Applied Stone and Dobinson - assumption of responsibility.
Lorry driver knowingly took illegal immigrants as cargo in his vehicle (assumption).Closed air vent to stifle noise and go undetected by police. They died (60!!!) and he was convicted

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Evans

A

Evans supplied her sister with heroine that Carly administered herself. Evans fear red she might overdose, recognising the symptoms and stayed in her room but did not call for an ambulance because she was on conditional licence and feared the authorities.
Evans had not taken acts to care for her sister Carly and could not be convicted under Stone and Dobinson BUT was convicted of gross negligence manslaughter under Miller principle: one person creates/contributes to a state of affairs which he knows/ought to have known has become dangerous –> duty arises to take reasonable steps to avert the danger

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Airedale NHS Trust v Bland

A

Doctor-patient relationship –> duty to act (and continue treatment) IN NORMAL SITUATIONS.
Here, it was in the patient’s best interest to discontinue treatment (had been in a vegetative state for over 3 years after Hillsborough Stadium Disaster)
ALSO: if patient validly refuses treatment, doctors are required by law to discontinue even when it will be deadly

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Frenchay Healthcare NHS Trust

A

Not strictly necessary to obtain court order before withdrawing treatment, might be impractical in emergency situations

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Pittwood (employed by railway company to shut gate before trains were due –> victim was killed on crossing)

A

Where D is under a contractual duty to act, even if the terms of this specify that it is a private duty owed only to the other contracting party, it can be used in criminal law as a duty to the public generally

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Instan

A

Contractual duty even when it is not immediately obvious - aunt gave niece money to look after her and buy food but she absconded with it –> convicted of manslaughter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Miller

A

Creation of a dangerous situation –> duty to act
A squatter fell asleep smoking, set his mattress on fire, noticed and ignored this and the house caught fire.
This was not recklessness - he became aware and still failed to take reasonable steps
HoL - no Heroes we’re expected, just call the fire brigade

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Lord Diplock in Miller

A

“Supervening fault”: the series of events from the moment of your inadvertent act that created the situation to the moment when you omitted o avert are all part of a CONTINUING act - fault supervenes upon you failing to advert it once you are aware

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Fagan v MP

A

Accidentally parked on police officer’s foot and then refused to move car - the series of events was part of a single continuing act, fault supervened after refusal although the dangerous situation was created inadvertently

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

DPP v Santana-Bermudez

A

Divisional court applied Miller principle in upholding conviction for ABH.
D lied that he had no more syringes in his pocket when he actually did and the police officer was stabbed by it when she searched him.
D had created a dangerous situation (exposing her to reasonably foreseeable risk) and therefore owed a duty to act

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Hart and Honoré - what is causation?

A

Causation is established where D’s acts made a difference between normal life occurrences and disaster

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Alan Norrie on the “making a difference” argument for causation

A

Individualist ontology: law proceeds on the assumption that we are all individual actors who are masters of our own fate, operating in isolation from any social context/forces

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Pagett

A

Non-voluntary interventions by 3rd parties are not “free, deliberate and informed”: D used girlfriend as shield before shooting at policemen who returned fire and killed her.
–> reasonable act of self-preservation and D should have foreseen (Hoffmann)

ALSO: Where causation arises, it is up to the jury to decide whether the prosecution has established the necessary causal link

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Two limbs of causation

A

1) factual causation: D’s conduct must in fact have caused the prohibited consequences
2) legal causation: D’s conduct must in law have caused the prohibited consequences

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Factual Causation

A

As a matter of fact, D’s acts have to have played a role in bringing about the prohibited consequence - LOW THRESHOLD
murder/manslaughter: everyone dies so it’s causing an acceleration in its occurrence i.e. you can murder someone who is terminally ill

34
Q

White

A

Factual causation: But for test
D put potassium cyanide in his mother’s drink, she drank half of it but then died of a heart attack. D’s acts were not a factual cause of his mother’s death, she would have died in the same way, at the same time regardlessly

35
Q

Cheshire

A

As long as D’s cause is a SIGNIFICANT cause, it need not be the only cause or even the main cause
NOTE: low threshold - significant means more than minimal

Seems to overtake Jordan: intervening medical treatment has to be so independent of D’s acts and potent in causing death that D’s acts be one insignificant

Here, bullet wounds were healing but a tracheotomy was performed negligently
–> procedure stemmed from initial wound so D legally caused death

36
Q

Legal Causation

A

Once you have but for causation, you also need legal causation
Question of public policy: factually we might have ascribed a causal connection between you and the proscribed result, but legally, should we attach moral blameworthiness?

37
Q

Professor Glanville Williams on Legal Causation

A

Test for moral reaction - whether the result can fairly be said to be imputable to the defendant

38
Q

Claire de Than and Russell Heston of Legal Causation

A

Infinitive consequences - at some point, is it legally fair to attribute these to D’s acts

39
Q

Lord Hoffmann on Legal Causation - Empress Car v National Rivers Authority

A

No hard and fast principle, mostly common sense.

“I doubt whether abstract metaphysical theory is of much use. The notion of causation should not be over complicated.”

40
Q

Substantial Cause

A

Overlap between factual and legal causation: Courts often say that D’s acts should be a substantial cause if it is more than a minimal cause the consequences (Cheshire)

41
Q

Kimsey

A

A cause will be substantial as long as there was more than a “slight and trifling link”

42
Q

Benge

A

Fact that 3rd parties also contributed will not absolve D, as long as D’s act was a substantive one
Here, foreman misread timetable and did not lift a piece of track. The fact that the driver was not properly on the look-out and that the flag man was not in regulatory distance did not absolve D:

43
Q

Dalloway

A

Shows the overlap between factual and legal causation.
D was driving a horse cart without holding reins. Child jumped onto road. He was acquitted as Act wasn’t deemed morally culpable: even if he had been holding reins, the reaction time was so short that she would have died anyway
–> moral element of legal causation, but doesn’t that sound a lot like factual causation too i.e. ratio in White?

44
Q

Lord Hoffmann of Intervening Acts - Express Car vNational Rivers Authority

A

“It is of course the causal significance of acts of third parties or natural forces that gives rise to almost all of the problems about the notion of ‘causing’

Law and common sense attach great significance to deliberate human acts/extraordinary natural events

45
Q

Hart and Honoré: Intervening Acts

A

Either

1) “free, deliberate and informed” intervention of a 3rd party
2) abnormal Act/event coinciding with/supervening D’s conduct

46
Q

Alan Norrie on “abnormality” and “voluntariness” of Intervening Acts

A

What is abnormal depends on social perception and therefore a sociopolitical label is stuck on it.

What is voluntary can be broad or narrow, depending on how much one recognises the social character of life

47
Q

Hart and Honoré on natural events intervening

A

If D knocks V unconscious and leaves them by the sea so that V is drowned by the incoming tide, D has legally caused V’s death - natural event of tide is not unnatural or unforeseeable.

If V however is killed by a lightening strike, courts might take this as an extraordinary and hence superseding D’s conduct

48
Q

Pagett || Empress Car

A

A “free, deliberate and informed” act between D’s act and its ultimate consequence can break the legal chain of causation

49
Q

Campbell | Yateman | Henry

A

Where the 3rd party’s intervention is not independent of D or their acts form part of the same chain of events as D, D remains causally responsible

Here, Campbell, Yateman and Henry attacked V and Y came back later to perform another attack on V. Held, that on medical evidence, the earlier attack was a significant cause of death. Y’s act was not fundamental enough to amount to an intervening act

50
Q

The CURENT law on intervening acts in drug cases

A

Kennedy No 2: reestablished orthodoxy - a voluntary and informed decision by a victim with full capacity is not caused by another

51
Q

Dalby

A

A mere supplier of heroin did not cause the user’s death as the self administration is a free, deliberate and informed act

52
Q

The original Kennedy in 1999

A

Departure from the established principle on intervening acts in drug cases: D as a mere supplier was found to have legally caused V’s death.
Dalby was distinguished - gone beyond mere supplier by preparing syringe = encouragement to inject

53
Q

Dias

A

Tried to return to orthodoxy as to intervening acts in drug cases: simply distinguished The original Kennedy on technicality (here Causation not left to the jury)

IMPLIED: chosen self-administration would break chain of causation. Only when forced or mentally incompetent…

54
Q

Rogers

A

Does not follow Dias - perpetuated the error made in original Kennedy

D applies tourniquet to V’s Act , V self-insects and Rogers is held guilty of unlawful act manslaughter. The CoA argued that the application of the tourniquet is part of the continuing act of self-injection. Therefore Rogers commits unlawful act of s23 administering a noxious substance under OAPA 1861. This unlawful act accompanied by death = unlawful act manslaughter

55
Q

Finlay

A

Returned to the original Kennedy, introducing foreseeability of V’s injection as continuing chain of causation

56
Q

Kennedy No 2 (CoA, not HoL that is authority now)

A

Criminal case review: remove problem of causation by presenting drug supply cases as joint enterprise crimes - reduction of D cause V to administer to D administered to V

REJECTED in Kennedy No 2: not acting in concert/jointly responsible because V had a CHOICE, knowing the facts of whether to inject

57
Q

Timeline in the drug supplier cases

A 
Dalby
The original Kennedy
Dias
Rogers
Finlay
Kennedy No 2 2005
Kennedy No2 2007
58
Q

Grindler

A

The free, deliberate and informed test in Kennedy No2 does not apply to death by dangerous driving/ causing death by careless driving.
In such situations, the chain of causation will be broken by the intervening act of another that was not reasonably foreseeable, even if that act was not free, deliberate and informed

59
Q

Empress Car

A

Public policy for holding D responsible despite free, deliberate and informed intervention of natural event/3rd party
Charged with pollution even though a 3rd party had caused the oil to flow into a river.
HoL: such an Intervention was foreseeable. Lord Hoffmann - left tanker in precarious situation –> like a natural event

60
Q

De Than and Heaton on Empress Car

A

Fallacy in Lord Hoffmann’s argument: voluntary human acts = natural events. It has never been necessary for the free, deliberate and informed Act of a HUMAN 3rd party to be extraordinary/unforeseeable
Criminal responsibility based on personal autonomy and ownership of consequences

61
Q

Micheal

A

A 3rd parties Act will not be intervening if it’s not informed: D, intending the death of her child, handed a bottle of poison to foster mother stating it was medicine –> foster mother not guilty of child’s death

62
Q

Williams

A

“Escape” case: intervening acts of the victim do not break chain as they are not free, providing V’s response was understandable in the circumstances and not unexpected or “daft”

NOTE: jury should bear in mind any particular characteristics of V and that in the agony of the moment they might act without thought or deliberation

63
Q

Corbett

A

Intervening acts of V: particular characteristics of V (subjective)
Victim being drunk/mentally ill has to be taken into account assessing what response D could have expected –> only applies when D is aware/reasonable person in those circumstances would have been

64
Q

Marjoram

A

Intervening acts of V: “reasonable foresight” test is objective - particular characteristics of D irrelevant

65
Q

Hayward

A

Thin skull rule: take your victim as you find it
D chased wife into the street and she collapsed and died due to overexertion and a pre-existing thyroid condition of which D was unaware –> D caused death because he took her in the condition he found her in

66
Q

Blaue

A

Extended thin skull rule in Hayward: does not only include physical characteristics but also mental aspects of V
Here, V was a Jehovah’s Witness and refused blood transfusion after being injured by D, that probably would have saved her life
–> legally caused her death

67
Q

Blaue vs. Williams

A

Escape cases - unforeseeable acts by V break chain, according to thin skull rule they don’t?
DeThan: limiting thin skull rule to preexisting physical conditions.
However, she believes Blaue is based on direct injury persisting as substantial and operating cause at time of death

68
Q

Smith

A

Even if medical treatment contributes to death, if initial wound is still a “substantial and operating” cause at time of death, then D has caused death (no break)

Here, V was stabbed with a bayonet in a barrack room brawl in Germany - dropped twice on the was to hospital, given wrong treatment (right treatment = 75% survival chance)

–> D still convicted - only break if second cause is so overwhelming as to make the original wound merely part of history

69
Q

Malcherek

A

Discontinuance of medical treatment which allows the initial wound to take its natural course and end in death will not break chain of causation between D’s Act and consequence

70
Q

Dear

A

Even if V’s wounds have been properly treated and then re-opened (accidentally or by V) and V does nothing to stop the bleeding, D will still be legally responsible for V’s death as the initial wound is still substantial and operating cause of death

71
Q

Dahliwal

A

Had there been an identifiable psychiatric condition linked to D’s abuse then he would have been legally responsible for the death of his wife

72
Q

Jordan

A

Initial cause became “merely part of history” (Smith) due to intervening medical treatment: V had substantial,y recovered but hospital persisted with treatment of antibiotics he had already shown himself intolerant to

73
Q

M.S Moore on but for test

A

But for test makes irrelevant factors causal: if a vase falls off the table and shatters, the fact that it was not made of unbreakable material becomes causal

74
Q

Hughes

A

SC’s criticism of how causation was applied by CoA in Williams [2010 NOT escape case]:

court accepted that no fault could be attributed to D but since he was driving without insurance/licence he was convicted of causing death while driving without licence/insurance under Road Traffic Act 1988

Factual causation sufficient to convict, CoA argued Parliament intended to remove legal causation (already created other low fault level driving offences)

SC in Hughes argued there must be more than mere but for test, some moral culpability, term “caused by driving” already imported legal causation into statute

75
Q

Lowe

A

Liability will not be imported for an omission under the heading constructive manslaughter. Only possible basis for liability is atm gross negligence manslaughter

76
Q

Adomako

A

D must owe a duty of care before gross negligence manslaughter will arise

77
Q

Elliott on liability for manslaughter by omission

A

Current law is unnecessarily restrictive in requiring both a duty to act under common law and a duty to care under civil law
- Adomako

78
Q

Critique of common law rules on duty to act

A

Grenville Williams: categories (assumption of responsibility, relationship…) are too narrow and uncertain
Law Commission in 1989: categories so uncertain they’d be impossible to codify
Lord Mustill in Bland: recreated this
CoA in Sinclair: courts openly favour incremental development of relationships which give rise to a duty to act –> great uncertainty as to wether conduct criminal

79
Q

Padfield on omission in homicide vs. omission in pollution cases

A

Pollution cases: Empress Cars, Alphacel –> judges have taken omissions to be positive acts in themselves and thus constitutive of liability whereas in homicide, omission will not usually result in liability (unless under duty to act)

Quotes Ashworth: this is unsustainable and evidence of “puissance of legal over factual causation

80
Q

Argument: factual vs. legal causation

A

Williams: factual > legal, restated by Hughes - some legal causation
Pollution cases: legal > factual (intervening acts)

Crime (Henriette) (7 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions