Actus Reus

Question 1

Actus Reus

Answer 1

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

Question 2

Famous case on what is voluntary and what is not:

Answer 2

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

Question 3

Accused must cause the prohibited consequences

Answer 3

• Conduct does not need to be the sole cause of the crime
• Defendant must cause the result

Question 4

Omission

Answer 4

Failing to do something under a duty

Question 5

Cardinal Principle

Answer 5

Actus non facit reum nisis mens sit rea

–

No act is punishable unless it is performed with a criminal mind

Question 6

Where do we find the actus reus:

Answer 6

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

Question 7

“But for” test

Answer 7

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?

Question 8

Chain of causation

Answer 8

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.

Question 9

Multi Stage test:

Answer 9

1. But for test (who is involved in the chain of events from a factual standpoint)
2. Legal causation
3. 1. Is Ds act a substantial (Cheshire 1991) and
      * *operative (R v Smith)** cause of the consequence

• 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.

Question 10

R v Cheshire (1991)

Answer 10

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.

Question 11

R v Smith (1959)

Answer 11

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.

Question 12

Diminimis Principle

Answer 12

More than trivial

• Trivial: Light stitch
• Substantial: deep cut

Question 13

R v Pagett (1983)

Answer 13

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.

Question 14

R v Jordan (1956)

Answer 14

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.

Question 15

Novus Actus Interveniens

Answer 15

(Intervening acts, breaking the chain of causation)

1. Acts of the Victim
2. Acts of third parties
3. Naturally occurring events

Question 16

Novus Actus Interveniens

Part 1: Acts of the victim

Answer 16

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.

Question 17

Egg Shell Skull Rule / Thin Skull Rule

Answer 17

Take the victims as they are.

Major case:

R v Blaue

-> If a victim is more vulnerable than foreseeable, D is liable anyhow

Question 18

Novus Actus Interveniens

Part 2: Acts of 3rd parties

Answer 18

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.

Question 19

Novus Actus Interveniens

Part 3: Naturally Occurring Events

Question 20

DPP v Santana-Bermudez (2003)

Answer 20

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

Question 21

General Rule Ommission

Answer 21

Assault and Battery can not be committed by ommission, exception to the rule is DPP v Santan-Bermudez

Question 22

Omission - Direct Liability

Answer 22

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
  (

Question 23

Omission - Direvitive liability

Answer 23

A duty

-