Actus Reus

Question 1

what is actus reus?

Answer 1

means “guilty act”, it is the physical, conduct element of the crime

usually involves a voluntary act, omission or state of affairs

must be proved first but will only create criminal liability if accompanied by MR

Question 2

how do we know what conduct is required?

Answer 2

by looking at the definition of a particular crime

for statutory crimes, these are found in the words of an Act of Parliament

for common law offences, they are found in the decisions of the court

Question 3

what crimes can AR include?

Answer 3

actus reus includes all the elements that make up an offence except those relating to the defendant’s state of mind

can include conduct, consequences and circumstances

Question 4

conduct crimes

Answer 4

what matters is what D does, no consequence is required

e.g. drink driving under the Road Traffic Act 1988 is the crime itself, an accident does not need to occur

Question 5

consequence crimes

Answer 5

what matters is that the act results in a consequence

e.g. assault occasioning ABH under s.47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, there must be some injury to the victim and without this, the AR is not complete

Question 6

circumstance crimes

Answer 6

what matters is being there in the prohibited circumstances

e.g. being in possession of a controlled drug under Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, the defendant does not have to do anything with the drug because being in possession of it is the actual offence and enough to form the AR

Question 7

features of AR

Answer 7

voluntary acts

state of affairs

omissions

causation

Question 8

voluntary acts

Answer 8

the defendants conduct must be voluntary, if D did not intend the act then we can hardly say they did it

Hill v Baxter (1958) gave a hypothetical example of this; if D was driving a car and a swarm of bees flew in, causing them to lose control of the car, it could be said that D was no longer driving and therefore there would be no AR of dangerous driving

an involuntary act cannot be a guilty act, there would be a defence known as automatism

Question 9

state of affairs

Answer 9

an involuntary act cannot be a guilty act, there would be a defence known as automatism

however, some offences can be committed because of the state of affairs even if D’s conduct was not voluntary

EXAMPLE = Larsonneur (1933)
D was deported against her will from Ireland to England but upon arrival she was charged with being an illegal alien despite the fact that she had not voluntarily come to England

Question 10

omissions

Answer 10

an omission is a failure to act and this can form the AR

there is no ‘good samaritan’ law in the UK so a person is not liable for an omission unless under a duty to act

statutory duties are created by Parliament such as failing to wear a seatbelt under the Road Traffic Act 1988 or failure to muzzle a dangerous dog in public under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991

common law duties are created by judges and include……
• contractual duties
• duty based on an official position
• duty based on a relationship
• duty undertaken voluntarily
• duty based on the creation of a dangerous situation

there is a possible end to duty by release or cessation

Question 11

5 common law duties

Answer 11

contractual duty

duty based on an official position

duty based on a relationship

duty undertaken voluntarily

duty based on creation of a dangerous situation

Question 12

contractual duty

Answer 12

created by a contract of employment

EXAMPLE = Pittwood (1902)
D (a railway crossing keeper) had a duty to close the gates as part of his contractual obligation, a train collided with a cart and killed V. D was therefore liable for V’s death when he failed to close the gates and was charged with manslaughter

Question 13

duty based on an official position

Answer 13

usually related to public office

EXAMPLE = Dytham (1979)
D was a police officer who stood by while V was beaten up, D was guilty for failing to perform his duty which in a public position

Question 14

duty based on a relationship

Answer 14

usually between parent and child

EXAMPLE = Gibbins + Proctor (1918)
father deliberately starved his 7 year old daughter to death, he had a duty to feed her because he was her parent. therefore he was guilty of murder

Question 15

duty undertaken voluntarily

Answer 15

based on reliance

EXAMPLE = Stone + Dobinson (1977)
D had voluntarily assumed a responsibility to a relative by taking her in, D failed to look after her and ensure she got the medical help she needed which resulted in her death, D was liable for her death

Question 16

duty based on the creation of a dangerous situation

Answer 16

and the need to act reasonably in response

EXAMPLE = Miller (1983)
D accidentally set fire to a mattress but failed to take reasonable steps to deal with the fire he had started, he had created a dangerous situation and owed a duty to call the fire brigade, therefore liable for his omission to do so

Question 17

possible end of duty by release or cessation

Answer 17

EXAMPLE = Bland (1993)
if discontinuance of treatment by doctors is in the best interests of the patient then it is not an omission, so does not form AR

Question 18

causation

Answer 18

essential element in establishing actus reus

needs to be evidence to show that the defendant caused the consequence

two types of causation that need to be proved for there to be AR; factual + legal

prosecution has to show that:

1. D’s conduct was the factual cause of the consequence
2. D’s conduct was the legal cause of the consequence
3. there was no intervening act that broke the chain of causation

Question 19

factual causation

Answer 19

proved by the “but for” test — must be proved that the unlawful consequence would not have happened but for D’s actions

if it would’ve happened anyway then D is not liable

CASE EXAMPLE = White (1910)
D tried to poison his mother but she actually died of a heart attack, not the poison itself. Therefore, he was not that factual cause and not guilty of murder because but for his actions she would’ve died anyway

CASE EXAMPLE = Pagett (1983)
D was the factual cause of death when he used his girlfriend as a shield and fired at the police who then fired back. She would not have died but for his actions so he was liable for her death

factual causation is not enough by itself, there must also be legal causation and vice versa

Question 20

legal causation

Answer 20

proved using the “de minimus” test — must be proved that D’s conduct was more than a minimal cause of the consequence

CASE EXAMPLE = Kimsey (1996)
D and V engaged in a high speed car chase but V lost control of the car and died. D’s driving did not have to be the substantial cause of death, as long as there is more than a slight or trifling link between his actions and the consequence

D can still be guilty if their conduct was not the only cause of the consequence — in Benge (1865) it was irrelevant that the accident might have been avoided if others had not also been negligent, D was still liable

thin skull rule — D must take the victim as they find them, if V has something unusual about their psychical or mental state which makes an injury more serious then D is liable for the more serious injury (even if they were unaware of V’s condition)

CASE EXAMPLE = Blaue (1975)
V was a Jehovah’s Witness and refused a blood transfusion, D was held responsible for V’s death even though she would’ve survived if she had accepted the treatment

Question 21

intervening acts

Answer 21

there must be a direct link between D’s conduct and the consequence, known as the chain of causation

chain of causation can be broken by a novus actus interveniens (new intervening act) such as; an act of nature, unforeseeable act of a third party or the victim’s own act

intervening acts relieve D of liability

Question 22

INTERVENING ACTS

victim’s own act

Answer 22

if V acts in an unforeseeable and unreasonable way then their own act will break the chain of causation

EXAMPLE = Roberts (1971)
chain of causation was not broken because it was reasonably foreseeable that V may jump out of a moving car to escape unwanted sexual advances

Question 23

INTERVENING ACTS

third party acts

Answer 23

free, voluntary and informed actions of third parties can break the chain of causation

EXAMPLE = Kennedy (2007)
D supplied a class A drug to V who died when taking it, D did not cause V’s death because V had a choice whether to object himself or not — V’s voluntary act of taking the drugs broke the chain of causation

Question 24

INTERVENING ACTS

medical treatment

Answer 24

medical treatment, even if negligent, is unlikely to break the chain of causation

unless it is so independent of D’s act and “in itself so potent causing death” that D’s acts are insignificant

D’s conduct must be an operating and substantial cause — in Smith (1959) the chain of causation was not broken by medical treatment because the stab wound was still the operating and substantial cause of death

D only needs to make a significant contribution — in Cheshire (1991) the chain is causation was not broken by medical treatment even though V died from complications left by a tracheotomy, his wounds had virtually healed but D was still guilty as his actions of shooting V still contributed significantly to the death

very poor medical treatment can break the chain of causation — in Jordan (1956) the chain of causation was broken by medical treatment because doctors gave V a large amount of antibiotics even though he was allergic to it, this act was sufficiently independent to break the chain as the mistake made by the doctor was the overwhelming cause of death (the original wounds had virtually healed)

Question 25

INTERVENING ACTS 
medical treatment (extra info)

Answer 25

switching off a life support machine does not break the chain of causation — in Malcharek (1981) D tried to argue that the doctors decision to switch off V’s life support was the cause of death but D was still convicted of murder