Actus Reus Flashcards
What is included in the elements of an offence?
act, omissions, voluntariness, circumstances, consequences
What does actus reus mean?
The Guilty Act; the physical elements of the offence
Technical Requirements for conviction?
Age Restriction under section 13 (age of 12 and only applies to their calendar mind, and not mental mind)
Territorial restrictions (section 6); has to be committed within Canada aside from a few exceptions
What are the judges’ role in determining actus reus?
Whilst most of them are codified, those that aren’t are interpreted, read into and decided by judges
What are the four steps to determining elements of an offence?
- Check the Criminal Code
- Search and Define
- Read-in caselaws with judge elements
- Read-in caselaws for judicial interpretations of the language in the provision
Sexual Assault History
Codified to replace outdated laws that lacked precision, showing dated language and incorrect assumption.
New actus reus for sexual assault includes:
(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;
(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or
(c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs.
R v chase
Case law that sets the actus reus, or at least attempts to set the actus reus for sexual assault
+ it does not depend solely on contact on specific areas and can be perpetrated by people of the same sex too
+ committed within circumstances of a sexual nature, such that the sexual integrity of the victim is violated
R V Toews
Case law that defines the actus reus for care and control of a vehicle
+ the act of assumption of care or control when the voluntary consumption of alcohol or a drug has impaired the ability to drive
+ he was not convicted because he was physically not in the driver’s seat; he had a sleeping bag; keys were in ignition BUT there was no evidence that he placed it in
Omissions
A failure to act which attaches criminal responsibility to actions not taken;
+ the offence must contemplate guilt for omissions
+ the accused must be placed under a legal duty to act
+ the omission must be a FAILURE to FULFILL that legal duty
R v Peterson
Duty of care and responsibility; relationship between two people can determine Actus Reus.
+ case details: Dennis Peterson failed to care for his father Arnold Peterson and was convicted of failing in his duty to provide his father with necessaries of life, and thereby endangered his life.
Duty of act can be imposed on individuals by court
Court orders, compliance to bail conditions, and compliance with probation
Difference between prohibitions and omissions
omissions include an imposition of duties to do certain things
prohibition prohibits certain things
Voluntariness (willed act)
The convicted must be/have:
Conscious
Operating Mind
Capable of making decisions
Mens Reus and Actus Reus in terms of Voluntariness
Canadian law has also accepted that unless a physical motion is willful, it is not fair to call it an act of the accused person.
+ you need a willing mind to be guilty of performing a criminal act
R v Swaby
Case law that dictates the coincidence of occupancy and the extent of knowledge required to deem something voluntary
criminal liability cannot be attached when it isn’t voluntary; there must be an afforded time for the person to comprehend the knowledge to make it voluntary and to make do with the situation
+ passenger had a firearm with him that the driver didn’t know until after a while
+ he didn’t voluntarily stay in the car with a firearm because he didn’t know there WAS a firearm
Automatism
A set of brief unconscious behaviors; voluntariness is deemed a basis for the defence using automatism
The law should punish acts done by responsible moral agents; if they were unconscious whilst they committed the crime, they will not be convicted
+ R v Parks (1992) used a similar defence
What does consequences not mean?
it DOES NOT mean the punishment
Consequences
The consequences of accused actions (e.g. consequence of manslaughter is death of another person)
+ not all offences include consequences as part of actus reus; some don’t mention it
Causation
When the actus reus includes a consequence, it becomes necessary to determine whether the accused’s actions actually caused the prohibited consequence
This creates a chain of causation that can only be broken using an intervening act!
The accused’s acts don’t have to be the only cause of the consequence
Intervening Act
An intervening act can break the chain of causation but it has to
- be independent of the accused’s actions
- Reasonably foreseeable from the accused’s actions
+ there are clauses that prevents certain intervening acts from breaking the chain (e.g. mediacl aid administered in good faith)
De Minimus Range
The minimal range; trivial factors that courts can overlook
R v Smithers
Case law that decided that the accused’s action need not be the only cause of death, and that it must be a significant contributing cause.
You must be responsible for your actions even if the consequences turn out to be worse than expected
R v Blaue
Case law that decided that the victim’s choice to not prevent death does not break the chain of causation
Just because the victim refused to receive medical aid doesn’t mean Blaue was absolved of his blame.
Circumstances
the prohibited action must be committed under certain circumstances to form actus reus (e.g. absence of consent)
Consent
a) The application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;
b) Threats or fear of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;
c) Fraud; or
d) The exercise of authority.
R v Ewanchuk
Case law and establisehd that implied consent was not a thing; clear and explicit consent must be given, and the absence of no does not constitute consent
Capacity of Consent
The legal limit or requirement for consent; not everyone has the capacity to consent to certain activities
There are also circumstances where consent will not be valid
In effect, there are actions to which no one has the legal capacity to consent.
+e.g. age of consent
R v Jobidon
Case law that dictates that an individual cannot consent to assault that causes “serious hurt or non-trivial bodily harm”
+ reasons for this decision: there are policy considerations related to protecting the santity of the human body and to prevent the development of sadism
R v J.A.
Case law that establishes consent must be on-going; for consent to be valid, individual must have the ability to give, revoke or withhold consent
+ case detail: consented to choking until unconscious, but activity during the time she was unconscious was not consented
