Actus Reus

Question 1

Actus Reus (Criminal Conduct)

Answer 1

Having considered mens rea (state of mind), the next key element is that of the actus reus. For a person to be found guilty of a criminal offence you must show that he/she:
• acted in a particular way
• failed to act in a particular way (omissions), or
• brought about a state of affairs.

Question 2

Actus reus of an offence

Answer 2

The behavioural element of an offence. When providing the required actus reus you must show:
• that the defendant’s conduct was voluntary, and
• that it occurred while the defendant still had the requisite mens rea.

Question 3

Voluntary Act

Answer 3

It must be shown that the defendant had the requisite mens rea at the time of carrying out the actus reus. However, there is no need for that ‘state of mind’ to remain unchanged throughout the entire commission of the offence.

Question 4

Voluntary Act example

Answer 4

If a person (X) poisons another (Y) intending to kill Y at the time, it will not alter X’s criminal liability if X changes his mind immediately after giving the poison or even if X does everything he can to halt its effects.

Question 5

What happens If the actus reus is a continuing act without any particular mens rea but the required ‘state of mind’ may come later while the actus reus is still continuing.

Answer 5

If the mens rea ‘catches up’ with the actus reus, the offence is complete at the first moment that the two elements (actus reus and mens rea) unite.

Question 6

Example of mens rea catching up with actus reus

Answer 6

A motorist was directed to pull his car over to the kerb by a police officer and drove it onto the officer’s foot, there was no proof that he did so deliberately. However, it was clear that he deliberately left it there after the officer told him what he had done. It became a criminal assault once the motorist became aware of it.

Question 7

Omissions

Answer 7

Criminal conduct is most often associated with actions but occasionally liability is brought about by a failure to act.
Most of the occasions where failure or omission will attract liability are where a ‘DUTY’ to act has been created.

Question 8

D in DUTY

Answer 8

Dangerous situation created by the defendant. For example, a person accidentally started a fire in a house (and became aware of), but instead of putting the fire out, he moved to another room taking no action to counteract the danger he had created, resulting in the house being damaged by fire.

Question 9

U in DUTY

Answer 9

Under statute, contract or a person’s public ‘office’.
• Statute – a driver who is involved in a damage or injury accident fails to stop at the scene of the accident.
• Contract – a crossing keeper omitted to close the gates (a job that was part of his contractual obligations) at a level crossing and a person was subsequently killed by a passing train.
• Public office – a police officer failed to intervene to prevent an assault.

Question 10

T in DUTY

Answer 10

Taken it upon him/herself – the defendant decides to carry out a duty and then fails to do so. For example, a defendant accepted a duty to care for her partner’s mentally ill sister who subsequently died from neglect.

Question 11

Y in DUTY

Answer 11

Young person – in circumstances where the defendant is in a parental relationship with a child or young person, i.e. an obligation exists for the parent to look after the health and welfare of the child and he/she does not do so.

Question 12

Having established such a duty

Answer 12

You must also show that the defendant has voluntarily omitted to act as required or that he/she has not done enough to discharge that duty. If a defendant is unable to act (e.g. because someone else has stopped him/her) or is incapable of doing more because of his/her own personal limitations (e.g. an inability to swim), the actus reus will not have been made out.

Question 13

Causal Link or Chain of Causation

Answer 13

Once the actus reus has been proved, you must then show a causal link between it and the relevant consequences. That is, you must prove that the consequences would not have happened ‘but for’ the defendant’s act or omission. (Refer to text examples)

Question 14

Intervening Act

Answer 14

The causal link can be broken by a new intervening act provided that the ‘new’ act is ‘free, deliberate and informed’. (Refer to text examples)

Question 15

Intent (NZ Law)

Answer 15

There are two specific types of intention in an offence. Firstly there must be an intention to commit the act and secondly, an intention to get a specific result.

Question 16

Intent - Deliberate act:

Answer 16

“Intent” means that act or omission must be done deliberately. The act or omission must be more than involuntary or accidental.

An example of this is seen in section 2, Crimes Act 1961, where the definition of assault “means the act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force…”. For instance, a person intends to strike the victim with their fist on the right side of the face above the eye.

Question 17

Intent to produce a result

Answer 17

The second type of intent is an intent to produce a specific result. In this context result means “aim, object, or purpose”.

An example of this is seen in section 228(1)(b), Crimes Act 1961, where “Everyone is liable … who, with intent to obtain any property, service, pecuniary advantage, or valuable consideration …”

While the offender deliberately intends to commit the act by using a document, their intention is also to obtain a specific result, in this case, any one of the elements specified in this section.

Question 18

Recklessness (NZ Law)

Answer 18

Acting “recklessly” involves consciously and deliberately taking an unjustifiable risk.

It must be proved not only that the defendant was aware of the risk and proceeded regardless (a subjective test), but also that it was unreasonable for him to do so (an objective test).

Question 19

R v Harney

Answer 19

The defendant was convicted of murder after stabbing the victim in the stomach during an altercation. He argued unsuccessfully that he had been aiming for the victim’s leg knowing he could have seriously injured the man, but denied wanting to kill him.

In this matter, the Court held that “Recklessness means the conscious and deliberate taking of an unjustified risk. In New Zealand it involves proof that the consequence complained of could well happen, together with an intention to continue the course of conduct regardless of risk.”

Question 20

R v Tipple

Answer 20

The Court suggested as a general rule “recklessness” is to be given the subjective meaning. The concept is subjective in that it requires that the offender know of, or have a conscious appreciation of the relevant risk, and it may be said that it requires “a deliberate decision to run the risk”.