Actus Reus

Question 1

Actus Reus definition

Answer 1

the external element of the crime - the conduct element. If there is no actus reus there is no crime

Question 2

Voluntary willed act

Answer 2

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”

Question 3

Dilution of voluntary willed act

Answer 3

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

Question 4

Omissions

Answer 4

No general liability for an omission to act - only liable if you have a duty to act

Question 5

Contractual duty

Answer 5

R v Pittwood - D was a gatekeeper and left it open and someone went through and died

Question 6

Parent and child duty

Answer 6

Gibbins v Proctor - starved daughter

R v Shepard - parental duty stops when child reaches 18

Question 7

Spouses, civil and long term partners duty

Answer 7

R v Hood - wife fell and husband failed to take her to hospital until after a month and she died

Question 8

Doctors duty to patients

Answer 8

R v Adomanko - anaesthetist failed to notice issue with ventilator and was guilty of manslaughter because a competent anaesthetist would have spotted error

Question 9

Voluntary or implied duty

Answer 9

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

Question 10

Continuing act duty

Answer 10

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

Question 11

Creation of danger duty

Answer 11

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

Question 12

Test for omissions

Answer 12

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

Question 13

Causation

Answer 13

Was there a causal link between D’s conduct and the result

Question 14

Two test for causation

Answer 14

Factual causation

Legal causation

Question 15

Factual causation

Answer 15

‘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

Question 16

3 tests for legal causation

Answer 16

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

Question 17

Novus Actus Interveniens

Answer 17

This is a new intervening act which breaks the chain of causation and absolves D of liability

Question 18

Novus actus interveniens must have been free, deliberate/voluntary and informed

Answer 18

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

Question 19

Doctors don’t break the chain of causation (unless there action was palpably wrong)

Answer 19

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

Question 20

If the act is reasonably foreseeable to an ordinary person there is no NAI and D remains liable

Answer 20

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

Question 21

Thin skull test - you take your victim as you find them

Answer 21

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