Actus Reus Flashcards
Actus Reus
Active Commission
(Doing something, that the law prohibits)
Active Omission
(Not doing something, that the law requires)
also, it can be the result or consequence caused by the accused
Famous case on what is voluntary and what is not:
Hill v Baxter (1958)
- Defendend was driving car and hit another car
- Charged with dangerous driving
Judge said:
- A swarm of bees flying into the car would render all actions involuntary
- Just 2-3 bees would render your acts following it still voluntary
Accused must cause the prohibited consequences
- Conduct does not need to be the sole cause of the crime
- Defendant must cause the result
Omission
Failing to do something under a duty
Cardinal Principle
Actus non facit reum nisis mens sit rea
–
No act is punishable unless it is performed with a criminal mind
Where do we find the actus reus:
Statutory definition
Common law defintion
Example:
Theft (Theft Act)
A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention to permanently depriving the other of it.
Elements of the actus reus
mens rea element
“But for” test
Way to determine if the defendant is criminally liable for the conduct or result/consequence.
It is a filter mainly.
R v White (1910)
Son intends to kill mother with poison.
Mother dies before the poisoning of a heart attack
Acquitted of murder.
Guilty of attempted murder only.
But for what the defendant did would the consequences have occurred?
If the result would not have occured but for what the defendant did?
Chain of causation
Direct cause:
Straight forward, D stabs V, V dies.
D is liable for Vs death
Indirect cause:
D pushes V, V falls, hurts head, dies of head injury
Here the but for test will be applied
the But for test will examine everyone who is involved of the chain of events of a crominal outcome.
Multi Stage test:
- But for test (who is involved in the chain of events from a factual standpoint)
- Legal causation
- Is Ds act a substantial (Cheshire 1991) and
* *operative (R v Smith)** cause of the consequence
- Is Ds act a substantial (Cheshire 1991) and
- it doesn’t need the only cause (Paggett 1983)
2. 2. Two operative causes,
Only if the second cause is so signifcant that it will put the prior cause to insignficant history it will be seen as the main cause.
R v Cheshire (1991)
where subsequent medical negligence occurs following the original injury. The Court of Appeal found that the jury did not have to weigh up different causes of death, and need only be satisfied that the defendant’s actions made a “significant contribution” to the victim’s death.
R v Smith (1959)
Issue
The issue was whether the negligence on the part of the doctors was capable of breaking the chain of causation between the defendant’s action in stabbing the victim, and his ultimate death.
Held
The court held that the stab wound was an operating cause of the victim’s death; it did not matter that it was not the sole cause. In order to break the chain of causation, an event must be:
“…unwarrantable, a new cause which disturbs the sequence of events [and] can be described as either unreasonable or extraneous or extrinsic” (p. 43).
The chain of causation was not broken on the facts of this case.
Diminimis Principle
More than trivial
- Trivial: Light stitch
- Substantial: deep cut
R v Pagett (1983)
D acts needs not to be the only or main cause, but just be “a” cause, which is not trivial, is sufficient to be make for criminal liability for the finaly consequence.
R v Jordan (1956)
Broken chain of events , Novus Actus Interveniens
R v Jordan (1956) 40 Cr App R 152 is an English criminal law case establishing that exceptional medical negligence may constitute a novus actus interveniens, capable of absolving a defendant of liability for any subsequent injury or death.
Novus Actus Interveniens
(Intervening acts, breaking the chain of causation)
- Acts of the Victim
- Acts of third parties
- Naturally occurring events
Novus Actus Interveniens
Part 1: Acts of the victim
Acts of the victim - General rule:
D liable for foreseeable consequences of his actions
key cases:
R v Roberts (1972)
D interfered, V was inside the car, V felt sexually assaulted, jumped out of the car, D claimed it was an independent act of V. Court held it was foreseeable (-> Daftness-Test)
It is reasonable to think that a woman might escape when she is feeling anxious.
(Sexual Assault)
contrasting case:
R v William (1992)
V jumps out of the car, because D wants to steal his wallet (theft), gets injured.
D is not liable for the injuries because it is totally unreasonable and “daft” to jump out of the car because the wallet might get stolen.
R v Blaue
D punctures V lung, they cant get a necessary blood transfer, that would have saved the life, because of religious reasons, V dies. Held: D is liable, because:
- Thin Skull Rule - Takes victims as they find them*
- > D is still liable if the V is more vulnerable than foreseeable.
Egg Shell Skull Rule / Thin Skull Rule
Take the victims as they are.
Major case:
R v Blaue
-> If a victim is more vulnerable than foreseeable, D is liable anyhow
Novus Actus Interveniens
Part 2: Acts of 3rd parties
Acts of third parties
Cheshire v Smith:
- If D was substantial cause, a minor intervening act can not change this
R v Jordan:
Pulbably wrong act canbreak the chain of causation.
The treatment killed him substantially, since the patient had already recovered
R v Malcherek:
Issues
In each case, the medical treatment that was given was considered normal and in line with approved medical practice. Both Malcherek and Steel were charged with murder. In both instances, the trial judges withdrew the issue of causation from the jury as it was clear the initial injuries inflicted were the cause of death. This direction was appealed by Malcherek and Steel.
Held
Appeal dismissed. The fact that the treatment was in line with medical opinion could not prevent the defendants having their guilt absolved. There was no evidence that the original injuries inflicted stopped being the operative cause of death. On this basis, it was held that the Issue was properly and appropriately withdrawn from the jury by the trial judges.
Novus Actus Interveniens
Part 3: Naturally Occurring Events
DPP v Santana-Bermudez (2003)
The defendant, Santa-Bermudez, had lied about the presence of sharp objects in his pocket when being searched by a female police constable and the constable was injured. The defendant was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm but he argued that as he had not actively committed any action that led to the injury, he lacked the required actus reus for the crime to have been committed.
Although convicted at the Magistrates’ Court, the defendant appealed to the Crown Court which found in his favour and dismissed the case. The DPP appealed to the High Court, which ruled that the defendant’s willful omission, which put the constable in a dangerous situation, was sufficient actus reus for the crime to have been committed
General Rule Ommission
Assault and Battery can not be committed by ommission, exception to the rule is DPP v Santan-Bermudez
Omission - Direct Liability
Statutory obligation - you must act - if not you will be held criminally liable.
Examples:
- Children and young person act 1988 s.1
(Duty of care) - Road traffic act 1988 s. 170
(You must exchange details after an accident) - Road traffic act 1988 s.6
(
Omission - Direvitive liability
A duty
-
