Actus Reus Flashcards
Actus Reus definition
the external element of the crime - the conduct element. If there is no actus reus there is no crime
Voluntary willed act
No one has forced you to do anything - Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland. “The requirement that it should be a voluntary act is essential in every criminal act”
Dilution of voluntary willed act
R v larsonneur - D banned from UK but brought back by the police but then charged with being an illegal alien in the uk
Winzar v chief constable of Kent - d charged with being drunk on the road despite being put on the road by the police
Omissions
No general liability for an omission to act - only liable if you have a duty to act
Contractual duty
R v Pittwood - D was a gatekeeper and left it open and someone went through and died
Parent and child duty
Gibbins v Proctor - starved daughter
R v Shepard - parental duty stops when child reaches 18
Spouses, civil and long term partners duty
R v Hood - wife fell and husband failed to take her to hospital until after a month and she died
Doctors duty to patients
R v Adomanko - anaesthetist failed to notice issue with ventilator and was guilty of manslaughter because a competent anaesthetist would have spotted error
Voluntary or implied duty
R v Stone and Dobinson - assumed care of stones sister and agreed to look after her (she has mental health issues and anorexia) she was found dead in appalling conditions they were found to have had a responsibility to get her help which they didn’t
Continuing act duty
Established in Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner - D ran over Vs foot and didn’t move off. Was charged with battery because of the continuing act duty
Creation of danger duty
Established in R v Miller - squatter say fire to mattress, woke up to find it and just ignored it. Extended Fagan to creation of danger duty
DDP v Santana Bermudez - police asked if any sharp object said no, needle in pocket
R v Evans - D gave V heroin who then slips into a coma. D stays with V but doesn’t call for help - creation of danger by not calling to help
Test for omissions
Reasonable person test (objective) - what would the reasonable person have done
R v Stone and Dobinson - the defendants low IQ was irrelevant and a reasonable person test was applied
Causation
Was there a causal link between D’s conduct and the result
Two test for causation
Factual causation
Legal causation
Factual causation
‘But for’ test - ‘but for’ D’s conduct would the prohibited result be the same
R v Dyson - V dying of meningitis when attacked. ‘But for’ being attacked he would have not died for a lot longer
R c White - D put poison in Vs drink. He drank it but died of a heart attack (unrelated) therefore not a cause of death. Not liable
3 tests for legal causation
Substantial- D’s behaviour must contribute in some way. All that is required is that it is more than de minimis contribution
Blameworthiness - must be a connection between D’s fault and the result (common in driving cases)
Operating - D’s contribution must still be ‘operating’ at the time of the result
Novus Actus Interveniens
This is a new intervening act which breaks the chain of causation and absolves D of liability
Novus actus interveniens must have been free, deliberate/voluntary and informed
R v Kennedy - D prepared syringe of heroin for V. V self injected and died. HoL found the act of self injection broke the chain of causation.
R v Burgess - court found if D helped V inject, it’s not sufficiently free and therefore there has been no break in the chain of causation
Doctors don’t break the chain of causation (unless there action was palpably wrong)
R v Chester - V shot and taken to hospital, had a procedure which went wrong and died. Doctors actions were down to D’s actions therefore not an intervening act
R v Jordan - Doctor gave medicine which V was allergic to and he died. The doctor should have known not to give the medicine and therefore broke the chain of causation as he was palpably wrong
If the act is reasonably foreseeable to an ordinary person there is no NAI and D remains liable
R v Roberts - V groped in the car and jumped out D is still guilty of ABH because it was foreseeable they would jump out the car
R v Dear - D attacked V, V aggravated the wounds which caused death. Court said this was not a break in the chain because the wounds were only there because of D’s original actions
Thin skull test - you take your victim as you find them
R v Blaue - D stabs V and v needs a blood transfusion. V refuses on medical grounds - not an intervening act as you have to take your victim as you find them
