Actus Reus Flashcards
What is Actus Reus
The guilty act (which can include omissions)
Actus Reus must be:
Voluntary - Things like physical force or reflex’s don’t count.
Types of Actus Reus
- ) An Act
- ) An omission
- ) Consequences of an act
- ) State of affairs in existence
Duties to act
Special relationships
Duty under contract
Duty imposed by statute
State of affairs crimes
“being rather than doing” offences such as being in charge of a vehicle whilst drunk
R v Larsonneur
Facts: - D was a French national who at the end of her legal period for being there went to Ireland and was deported back to England where she was arrested for being found in the UK without permission
- D appealed it was not her free will
Judgement: Appeal dismissed
L.P: - Prosecution had proved all that was needed for conviction
Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent
Facts: - D was taken to hospital on a stretcher but was too drunk and told to leave
- Police were called and took him to the highway but then arrested him for being drunk on a public highway
- Appealed saying not his free will
Judgment: Appeal dismissed
L.P: - No need for the court to regard how he got there
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissoner
Facts: - D accidentally parked his car on police officers foot and then refused to move
-D argued it wasn’t an act
Judgment: Guilty of assault
L.P: -Omission to move was intentional therefore omission could be classed as an act
R v Miller
Facts: - D was squatting in a property when he fell asleep holding a lit cigarette
- D woke, saw the fire and just moved to a different room -> whole house caught fire
Judgment: Guilty of arson
L.P: -D created a dangerous situation then omitted to do anything about it SO D’s omission to tackle to flames or alert authorities constitutes Actus Reus
R v Evans
Facts: -D gave sister heroin which she self-administered, but then started showing signs of an overdose and D did not summon medical assistance
- V died and D was charged with gross negligence manslaughter
Judgment: Guilty
L.P: - D had created the danger and then subsequently done nothing about it FOLLOWING R V MILLER
- The injection was voluntary but the duty of care was breached by omission
DPP v Santa-Bermudez
Facts: -Police officer searched D who claimed he didn’t have any needles in his possession
-Officer was stabbed on a needle in D’s pocket
Judgment: Guilty of batterey
L.P: -Follows Miller
R v Gibbons and Proctor
Facts: -Mother and father starved child
Judgment: Guilty of murder
L.P: - Murder can be comitted by omission if a duty is imposed on D
-D had a duty to protect child
R v Pittwood
Facts: - D was under contractual duty to open and close crossing gates at specfic times
-Negligently failed to close gates at one time leading to death of cart driver
Judgment: Guilty of gross negligence manslaughter
L.P: - D breached contracutal duty to close gate resulting in V’s death
R v Dytham
Facts: - D was an on duty police officer and failed to intervene when V was kicked to death by a nightclub bouncer
Judgment: Guilty of misconduct in public office
L.P: -D neglected to help or apprhend -> breached duty
Re A (conjoined twins)
Facts: -Two twins joined at the hip and seperating them would kill one but allow the other to live a normal life
- If waited, both would soon die
- Could they be lawfully seperated
Judgment: Yes
L.P: -Judges used different reasoing:
- Self defence - Necessity - Lack of intent
