ACTUS REUS

Question 1

1. What are the elements of a crime?

2. What is the narrowness of mens rea?

Answer 1

1.

a. Actus Reus - guilty act
b. Mens Rea - guilty mind - ranges from intent to negligence

“Actus non facit reus nisi mens sit rea” - Lord Hailsham in Haughton v Smith translates to An act does not make a man guilty of a crime unless his mind is also guilty. The Actus reus and Mens rea must coincide for an offence to be committed.

2.
The translation of mens rea to guilty mind is narrow because it could cover any number of mental states from intention to negligence.

Question 2

What are the 2 types of Acts/conduct?

Answer 2

1. Voluntary Conduct - An act that is willed and is part of the actus reus.
2. Involuntary Conduct - A reflexive action, is not from the exercise of D’s will.
   This does not include acts under duress or while intoxicated.
   eg. if D is attacked by a swarm of bees while driving and reacts, it can be said that he is no longer driving.

If voluntariness is part of the actus reus, then no one can be convicted of a crime if his act was involuntary.

Question 3

Offence: Omission to act

what is an omission to act?

Answer 3

In Common Law there’s no blanket “duty to act”. An omission to act can be LEGALLY blameworthy in special relationships where there is a duty to act.

Question 4

THREE elements that determine if a crime is committed by omission?

Answer 4

1. there was a duty of care
2. the duty of care was breached
3. there is CAUSAL CONNECTION between the breached duty and the harm suffered.

Question 5

OMISSION

FIVE relationships where omission is legally blameworthy?

Answer 5

1. parent-child or family relationships
2. voluntary .undertakings
3. contractual duty
4. D’s responsible for creating a dangerous situation
5. failure to provide medical treatment

Question 6

Blameworthy Omission: Type 1

parent-child or family relationships

PRINCIPLE

Answer 6

A settled relationship of dependence:
- Parents are under a duty to his/her child
to protect them from harm.
- Children above the age of responsibility
owe a corresponding duty to their
parents.
The important issue is not one of blood or legal relationship but one of interdependence.
- There may also be difficulty in determining when the duty ends. A parent’s duty to a child may end at 18 whereas it may not be the same for a disabled dependent child.

Question 7

Blameworthy Omission: Type 1

parent-child or family relationships

CASES

Answer 7

R v Gibbins and Proctor
Father and stepmom neglect their 7yr old daughter. While the father provided the money to take care of the family, the stepmom neglected, isolated and abused the child. The stepmom had a moral obligation to the deceased child from which a legal duty arose. The father living in the same home knew and did nothing leaving him also liable.

Downes
Father chose spiritual medicine (prayer) over modern medicine and neglected to call a doctor for his sick child resulting in her death. The court held that statute imposes a duty on parents to provide all that is necessary for their child, thus making this neglect a punishable offence.

Question 8

Blameworthy Omission: Type 2

voluntary undertakings

PRINCIPLE

Answer 8

A person who voluntarily undertakes care of another who is dependent and unable to take care of themselves owes a duty of care to that person (to protect them from harm).

This is especially the case when he is to receive some reward for caring for the other.

This principle also extends to unrelated persons who voluntarily undertakes responsibility. It is arguable, that is D sees a stranger (V) drowning but voluntarily goes to V’s aid could be liable should he abandon the rescue. This may be because V may now be worse off than when D met him as he may have stopped calling for assistance from potential rescuers.

Question 9

Blameworthy Omission: Type 2

voluntary undertakings

CASES

Answer 9

Instan
V suffered from gangrene in the leg and became dependent on her niece who she lived with. D provided no medical aid and continued to use V’s money to buy food which she did not share. D was guilty of manslaughter because the acceptance of V’s money generated a duty of care and the intentional neglect of the aunt was a crime.

Stone and Dobinson
D1’s sister came to live with him and his girl (D2). At the time she was healthy but later became anorexic, refused food and was later unable to leave bed. D1 and D2 made very little effort to provide medical aid and food and V died (in filthy conditions). The court held that their attempts to provide aid, though had little effort, imposed a duty of care towards V.

Question 10

Blameworthy Omission: Type 3

contractual duty

PRINCIPLE

Answer 10

A person is under a duty to act if he has contractually accepted the obligation.
If he fails to perform this duty the person can be held criminally liable.

Question 11

Blameworthy Omission: Type 3

contractual duty

CASES

Answer 11

Pitwood
D, a gatekeeper, failed to close the gate when a train was approaching - breaching his contract and resulting in the death of someone crossing. D was therefore convicted of manslaughter.

Dytham
A uniformed police officer fails to intervene during the kicking to death of V and left the scene without calling medical assistance. D was convicted of misconduct in a public office.

Question 12

Blameworthy Omission: Type 4

D creates a dangerous situation

PRINCIPLE

Answer 12

Where D does an act that creates a situation of danger he has a legal duty to take REASONABLE steps within his power to prevent the harm from resulting.

This creates liability where D’s original conduct of creating the danger was accidental.

Duty arises upon one’s realization of the danger.

Question 13

Blameworthy Omission: Type 4

D creates a dangerous situation

CASES

Answer 13

Fagan
D accidentally rolls onto a policeman’s foot (V) and upon being alerted (now forming the mens rea), takes him time before removing the car. D was charged with assault.

Miller
D falls asleep while smoking a cigarette and accidentally starts a fire. Upon realizing this (now forming the mens rea) he simply moves to another room and resumes slumber. This act and refusal to out the fire left D criminally liable.

Question 14

Blameworthy Omission: Type 5

failure to provide medical treatment

PRINCIPLE

Answer 14

A doctor under a legal duty to make reasonable efforts (with medical practice) to keep his patient alive.
A doctor is not obligated to continue treatment which keeps a patient alive at all costs.

Question 15

Blameworthy Omission: Type 5

failure to provide medical treatment

CASES

Answer 15

Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (distinguishes and act from an omission in Medical Cases)

V was in a persistent vegetative state for 3 years after being in a stadium disaster. It was of medical opinion that there was no hope of recovery. The Trust, in agreement with V’s parents, applied for a declaration that will lawfully allow the discontinuation of treatment to allow V to die in peace. The Official Solicitor resisted stating that this withdrawal constitiutes murder. There was no doubt of intention to kill however it was accepted that to kill by administering lethal injection was held to not be an act but an omission. An omission to act would only be blameworthy if there was a duty to act. Thus there was no duty to treat if treatment was not in the best interest of the patient.

Question 16

Offence: State of Affairs

PRINCIPLE

(what is state of affairs as an actus reus?)

Answer 16

Also known as situation offences.
This offence requires the occurance of a specific state of affairs in which D is involved.

This offence requires proof that D cause the state of affairs or failed to stop it when it was in his control to do so.

‘Being in posession’ is a state of affairs that involves criminal liability.

Question 17

State of Affairs

CASE

Answer 17

Larsonneur
D entered the UK under a conditional passport which stated a deadline for her stay and employment restrictions. D left the UK for the Irish Free State (Ireland) on her deadline. While there, a deportation order from the Irish Free State was made and the police returned her to the UK and handed her over to the police there where she was detained and charged for being an illegal alien.

Principle:
I does not mater HOW she got to the UK (not by free will), the fact that she was illegally there was enough to convict her. The actus reus is all that mattered.

Question 18

Defence: Automatism

what is automatism

Answer 18

Automatism suggests a lack of voluntariness. It suggests any external force that prevents D from controlling his actions.
It is restricted to acts done while unconscious and to spasms, reflex actions and convulsions.

This commonly arises in driving cases.
Automatism has narrow limits as a defence.

Question 19

The 2 types of automatism?

PRINCIPLES

Answer 19

1. Insane automatism (involuntarism) - due to an internal cause from a disease of the mind (diabetes, epilepsy, arteriosclerosis, cerebral tumour)
   D has the burden of proof to show he did
   not know the nature and quality of the
   act.
   Considered as raising the insanity
   defence.
2. Sane automatism - an external cause leading to loss of control (such as concussion, anaesthetic or other drug, hypnosis)
   D is not liable unless he intentionally
   caused the involuntary state or failed to
   avoid the loss of control.

**ACTS DONE WHILE SLEEPING was previously considered sane automatism but it is now held that it is cased by a disease of the mind, thus insane automatism.

Question 20

Automatism

CASE

Answer 20

Bratty v AG (Nothern Ireland)

While in a blackout state D kills V (18yr old girl) and dumps her body. D pleads insanity but is rejected and was allowed to rely on automatism. The case determines that to be liable for sane automatism one must:

1. have proof of intent
2. the act could not be considered a voluntary act an involuntary one.

Quick 
D (a nurse and diabetic) attacks patients after unintentionally mixing insulin and alcohol in his system (consumption over a period of time). D blacked out and was violent. The court ruled that sane automatism may not be used but instead, insanity can be used as medication consumed is due to a disease of the mind.

Hill v Baxter
Sleepy, D drives, falls asleep behind the wheel and is charged for dangerous driving. D is liable as he recklessly ignores the possibility of a dangerous situation and does it anyway.

Question 21

Offence: Causation

What are the 2 types of causation?

PRINCIPLES

Answer 21

In causation, D’s act or omission must have caused the result.

1. Factual Causation

There must be a factual link between D’s conduct and the result caused.

TEST: ‘BUT FOR’ principle.
It must be proved that but for D’s conduct, the event would not have occurred.
When deciding this, eliminate D’s behaviour and ask whether the result would have occurred anyway.

2. Legal Causation
   D’s act must be an OPERATIVE & SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE; in other words, there cannot be an intervening act breaking the chain of causation

a. refers to the extent of D’s contribution; is not the main C.o.D but played a role
b. D’s conduct may not be the only cause of the consequence but D is liable if his act is the substantial cause.
c. D’s conduct may not be the direct cause of the result
d. TEST: D must “TAKE HIS VICTIM AS HE FINDS THEM” aka the egg skull rule.
e. TEST: sine qua non rule of continuing conduct. If death occurs in the way D intended, he is still guilty even if the events were not expected.
* sine qua non - the essential condition

Question 22

Factual Causation

CASE

Answer 22

White

D attempts to poison his mother but does not put enough in the tea to be fatal when ingested. V instead dies from a heart attack. D was quitted of murder but convicted of attempted murder because even though the actus reus was missing the mens rea was there.

**
a son placed cyanide in his mother’s drink intending to kill her and later that night she died. Medical evidence held that the mother had died from a heart attack before the cyanide could take effect. As such, factual causation could not be established because but for the son’s actions, the mother would still have died.

Question 23

Legal Causation

CASES

Answer 23

Benge (Multiple causes)

D, a plate layer, had a contractual duty to bring the track down when a train arrives. D placed a flagman up the line however he was not in the correct place according to company rules. The engine driver did not see the signal in time to stop. This resulted in numerous deaths. D was held liable as his conduct was the substantial cause of the accident.

Hayward (victim’s conduct: eggshell skull rule)

While arguing a husband chases his wife out into the street. She collapses and dies. D did not touch her but screamed at her. V, unknowingly suffered from an abnormality of the thyroid gland in which fright or shock can cause death. The husband was charged for manslaughter. It is irrelevant whether or not V’s reaction was a reasonable reasonable. D’s preexisting mens rea also ensured that V’s medical condition did not break the chain of causation.

Thambo Meli (continuing conduct)

The Ds took their V to a bar, got him drunk and hit him above the head to kill him. Thinking he was dead they threw his body over a cliff. V actually died of exposure some time later. The Ds convicted of murder as this chain of events was treated as a continuing act in which at one point during the chain of events the Ds acted with the requisite mens rea.

Le Brun
D struck his wife rendering her unconscious. He did not intend serious harm. In an attempt to move the body D struck the V’s head on the pavement, an ac which was fatal. D was convicted of manslaughter as the unlawful application of force and eventual act causing death was a continuing act.

Blaue (TEST: egg shell skull rule)
The victim was stabbed by the defendant several times and required a blood transfusion to survive. Due to her religious beliefs, the victim refused the blood transfusion and died.

Principle:
The Court of Appeal held that the defendant had to ‘take the victim as he found her’ and could not argue that her death had been caused by her own actions.

Question 24

Breaking the Chain of Causation : Intervening Acts

PRINCIPLES

Answer 24

1. acts of 3rd parties - a 3rd party can only break the chain of causation if his act is free, deliberate and informed.
   b. medical treatment - med professional treat the injuries caused by D but the treatment is independent of D’s conduct and potent to render D’s acts as mere history/background and not the operating C.o.D.
   c. V’s conduct - if V’s actions is unreasonable, unforeseen or daft to the potential threat.

Additionally, following D’s act/threat V neglects or maltreats himself. D’s act is the substantial cause of V’s death (suicide) NOT breaking the chain of causation

d. ‘Act of God’ - will only break the C.o.C if is the sole immediate C.o.D and unforeseeable.

Question 25

Breaking the Chain of Causation

CASES

Answer 25

Pagett (acts of 3rd parties)

While resisting arrest D held his pregnant gf as a shield, fired at policemen who fired back instinctively, killing V. The court held that D’s act and V’s death is not broken by 3rd party as the officers acts were not free nor deliberate but instinctive.

Jordan (medical treatment)

Death could not be attributed to D as palpably wrong treatment was administered to V after he had shown intolerance to the drug and his wound was nearly healed.

Williams (victim’s conduct)

The D’s picked up a hitchhiker and when one of them attempted to rob him V jumped out of the moving vehicle, ending his life. The issue which arose when determining the D’s liability was whether the V’s reaction broke the chain of causation.

Kennedy argued this saying:
D cannot be held liable for causing voluntary and deliberate acts of the V merely because they were foreseeable reactions.

Dear (suicide)
The defendant’s 12-year-old daughter had complained that victim had sexually assaulted her, whereupon defendant took a Stanley knife and slashed the victim repeatedly. The victim died two days later. Defendant claimed that there had been a break in the chain of causation because the victim had committed suicide following the attack, either by deliberately re-opening the wounds which had healed or by failing to staunch the flow of blood from wounds which had reopened of their own accord.
**
The defendant had slashed the victim several times with a Stanley knife and she had died shortly after. The defendant sought to argue that the victim had committed suicide by attempting to re-open the wounds and as such her actions had constituted a novus actus interveniens, breaking the chain of causation.

Principle:
The court ruled that even if a victim aggravates his wounds sufficiently to cause otherwise avoidable death, the chain of causation is not broken. The victim’s death was caused by bleeding from the artery which the defendant had caused and so the jury was entitled to find that but for the defendant’s conduct, the victim would not have died; the defendant made an operative and significant contribution to the death despite the presence of other operating factors.

If, however, the wounds had healed, the position might be different; the suicide might break the chain of causation. The Court of Appeal opined that if the victim had committed suicide because of the defendant’s attack on him, then the chain of causation would not be broken. On the other hand, if the victim had committed suicide because of his shame at which he had done to the defendant’s daughter then the chain would have been broken; it would no longer be possible to say that the victim would not have committed suicide but for the defendant’s attack on him.

Hallet (Acts of God)