Actus Reus

Question 1

What is AR defined as

Answer 1

the physical element of a crime

Question 2

what times of crimes need AR

Answer 2

Conduct, consequence, state of affairs

Question 3

Must AR be voluntary?

Answer 3

Yes, its rare it isn’t (Larsonneur 1933)

Question 4

What omissions need AR

Answer 4

Statutory duty
contractual (R v Pittwood 1902)
due to a relationship (Gibbons and Proctor 1918)
voluntary duty (Stone and Dobinson 1977)
duty via position (Dytham 1979)
duty due to chain of events (R v Miller 1983 OR DPP v Santa Bermudez 2003)

Question 5

Duty of doctors for AR

Answer 5

Act in patients best interests, sometimes includes switching offline support

Question 6

issues with omissions

Answer 6

• wider liability like GSL?: people object for people being guilty for not doing anything
• problems of deciding when a duty exists`; law can expand over more situations (R v Khan and Khan 1998)
• person should be liable if they assume a duty: questions of how to discharge a duty etc
• omissions in med treatments: drs not liable for effectively failing to act to give patient food when taking off life support
• statutory duty: some bc of difficulty of proving offence ie Dometic violence, crime and victims act 2004

Question 7

factual cause?

Answer 7

But for test (page 1983)

Question 8

Is factual cause enough to convict someone for an offence

Answer 8

No, as seen is R v Hughes 2013

Question 9

Legal cause?

Answer 9

D guilty if cause more than minimal cause of consequence. ‘more than a slight of trifling link- R v Kimsey 1996)

Question 10

THINK SKULL RULE

Answer 10

Take the victim as you find them- R v Blaue 1975

Question 11

What are the three things that break the chain of causation

Answer 11

1>) victims own act

2. ) act of third party
3. ) natural and unpredictable event

Question 12

Act of a third party: Medical treatment, Likely or not to break the chain?

Answer 12

unlikely unless it is ‘so independent of Ds injuries’ and is ‘in itself so potent causing death’ ( R v cheshire 1991)
D will still be liable if injuries he caused are still ‘operating and substantial’ (R v Smith 1959)
Switching off life support not likely to break chain (R v Malcherek 1981)

Question 13

when does a victims own act break the chain

Answer 13

if the reaction is unreasonable (R v William and Davis 1992) but if it is reasonable then D is able for those injuries (R v Roberts 1971) or (R v Majoram 2000)

Question 14

comment on law of causation: Taking V as you find him , v refusing treatment and negligent med treatment

Answer 14

1. ) should d be liable even if its unfair?
2. ) should d be liable if treatment refused? understandable when med treatment was crappy but its better now. More extreme case than Blaue –> R v Dear 1996
3. )contradictory as in Cheshire wounds weren’t operating and substantial but smith said they must be