Actus Reus

Question 1

What is a ‘conduct crime’?

Answer 1

A crime where the consequence doesn’t have to be proven. Like theft where the offence is the actual crime itself.

Question 2

A crime where the consequence doesn’t have to be proven. Like theft where the offence is the actual crime itself.

What is this a definition of?

Answer 2

A ‘conduct crime’

Question 3

What is a ‘consequence crime’?

Answer 3

A crime that requires the conduct to result in a consequence like s47 OAPA 1861 where the conduct is ‘application of force’ and the consequence is ‘ABH’.

Question 4

What are ‘state of affairs’ crimes?

Answer 4

Where allowing a state of affairs which is illegal conduct continue. Such as possession of a weapon in a public place.

Question 5

Where allowing a state of affairs which is illegal conduct continue. Such as possession of a weapon in a public place.

What is this a definition of?

Answer 5

State of affairs crime

Question 6

A crime that requires the conduct to result in a consequence like s47 OAPA 1861 where the conduct is ‘application of force’ and the consequence is ‘ABH’.

What is this a definition of?

Answer 6

Consequence crimes

Question 7

What must the actus reus be for it to be considered a crime?

Answer 7

Actus reus must be voluntary-but there have been exceptions R v Larsonneur (1933)

Question 8

What case demonstrates that even someone involuntarily inflicting harm on a third party due to the actions of the first party has not necessarily committed a crime?

Answer 8

R v Mitchell (1983)

Facts: D pushed someone into V (who died from injuries). D convicted of unlawful act manslaughter. Man who was pushed was not charged.

Question 9

R v Mitchel (1983)

What does this case demonstrate regarding voluntariness of actus reus?

Answer 9

Demonstrates: that even if someone is pushed into someone else causing harm to the latter person then they are not necessarily guilty of a crime.

Facts: D pushed someone into V (who died from injuries). D convicted of unlawful act manslaughter. Man who was pushed was not charged.

Question 10

What case shows a rare instance where D can be convicted of an offence they didn’t voluntarily commit?

Answer 10

R v Larsonneur (1933)

Facts: D had been ordered to leave UK and went to Ireland. Ireland didn’t want her either so she was deported to the UK and arrested immediately for being an illegal alien.

Question 11

R v Larsonneur (1933)

What does this case demonstrate regarding the actus reus of a crime?

Answer 11

Demonstrates: a rare circumstance where D can be found guilty of an offence even though they did not voluntarily commit the act.

Facts: D had been ordered to leave UK and went to Ireland. Ireland didn’t want her either so she was deported to the UK and arrested immediately for being an illegal alien.

Question 12

What is the general rule regarding omissions constituting an actus reus?

Who can be quoted explaining this rule?

Answer 12

Normal rule is omission cannot constitute actus reus, but there are exceptions.

Stephen J (nineteenth century judge)

Question 13

What is the exception to the general rule regarding omissions not constituting an actus reus?

Answer 13

An omission is only sufficient when there is a legal duty to act.

Question 14

What are the circumstances in which a duty exists, therefore meaning someone must act to protect an individual?

Answer 14

1) Statutory duty
2) Contractual duty
3) Relationship duty
4) Voluntarily assumed duty
5) Positional duty
6) Because D set in a chain of events

Question 15

Omissions constituting an actus reus

1) Examples of statutory duty that mean someone must act?

Answer 15

1) s170 Road Traffic Act 1988-failing to stop or report a RTA
2) s1 Children and Young Persons Act 1933-Parents must provide clothes, food, shelter
3) s5 Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004-Allowing the death of a child or vulnerable person

Question 16

s170 Road Traffic Act 1988

Answer 16

Failing to stop or report an RTA

Question 17

Failing to stop or report an RTA

Which statute?

Answer 17

s170 Road Traffic Act 1988

Question 18

s1 Children and Young Persons Act 1933

Answer 18

Parents must provide clothes, food, shelter.

Question 19

Parents must provide clothes, food, shelter.

What statute?

Answer 19

s1 Children and Young Persons Act 1933

Question 20

s5 Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004

Answer 20

Person in same household cannot allow the death of a child or vulnerable person

Question 21

Person in same household cannot allow the death of a child or vulnerable person

What statute?

Answer 21

s5 Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004

Question 22

Omissions constituting an actus reus.

2) Contractual duty

Case example?

Answer 22

R v Pittwood (1902)

Facts: Rail crossing guard failed to close gate, leading to the death of a pedestrian. Keeper found guilty of manslaughter.

Question 23

R v Pittwood (1902)

What does this case demonstrate regarding omissions as an actus reus?

Answer 23

The second way a duty can exist that omitting to perform can constitute an offence.-CONTRACTUAL DUTY.

Facts: Rail crossing guard failed to close gate, leading to the death of a pedestrian. Keeper found guilty of manslaughter.

Question 24

Omissions constituting an actus reus.

3) Relationship duty.

Case example?

Answer 24

R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918)

Facts: Father of young girl purposefully neglected to feed her and she died-step mum also found guilty because she was held to have undertaken the task of caring for the child.

Question 25

R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918)

What does this case demonstrate regarding omissions as an actus reus?

Answer 25

R v Gibbons and Proctor establishes that an omission is capable of amounting to the actus reus of murder where the defendant has a duty of care towards the victim.

Question 26

Arguments in favour of a ‘good Samaritan law’?

Answer 26

it makes a person responsible for helping other people in an ‘emergency situation’, even though they are complete strangers.

Question 27

Arguments against a ‘good Samaritan law’?

Answer 27

1) risk that an untrained person, by intervening, can do more harm to an injured person.
2) what is an ‘emergency situation’?
3) if several people witness the accident, do all of them have to help?
4) people can put them self at serious risk by helping

Question 28

What case is an example of the ‘but for’ principle?

Answer 28

R v Pagett (1983)

Pagett was guilty because the girl would not have dies ‘but for’ him using her as a shield in the shoot-out.

Question 29

R v Pagett (1983)

What does this case demonstrate regarding causation?

Answer 29

It shows how the defendant can only be guilty if the consequence would not have happened ‘but for’ the defendant’s conduct.

Question 30

What is the ‘but for’ principle?

Answer 30

the defendant can only be guilty if the consequence would not have happened ‘but for’ the defendant’s conduct.

Question 31

It is a factual cause where the result wouldn’t have occurred ‘but for’ the actions of D.

What is this a definition of?

Answer 31

the ‘but for’ principle in factual causation.

Question 32

What case demonstrates that factual causation on its own is not necessarily enough for liability?

Answer 32

R v Hughes (2013)

Question 33

R v Hughes (2013)

What does this case demonstrate regarding causation?

Answer 33

factual causation is not necessarily enough on its own for liability.

Question 34

Causation
What case demonstrates that for ‘legal cause’ the rule is that any conduct which is more than ‘minimal’ is the cause of the consequence?

Answer 34

R v Kimsey (1996)

D was involved in a high speed car chase with a friend, she lost control of her car and the other driver was killed.

Question 35

R v Kimsey (1996)

What does this case demonstrate regarding causation?

Answer 35

for ‘legal cause’ the rule is that any conduct which is more than ‘minimal’ is the cause of the consequence?

Question 36

What case demonstrates the ‘thin skull’ rule?

a.k.a take the victim as you find them

Answer 36

R v Blaue (1975)

The fact that the victim was a Jehovah’s Witness made the wound fatal, the defendant was still guilty because he had to take his victim as he found her.

Question 37

R v Blaue (1975)

What does this case demonstrate regarding causation?

Answer 37

The defendant must take his victim as he finds them.

If the victim has something unusual about his physical or mental state which makes an injury more serious, the D is liable for the more serious injury.

Question 38

What circumstances can break the chain of causation?

Answer 38

an act of a third party

the victim’s own act

a natural but unpredictable event

Question 39

In what circumstance would medical intervention break the chain of causation?

Answer 39

medical treatment is unlikely in breaking the chain unless it is so independent of the D’s act and “in itself so potent in causing death” that the D’s acts are insignificant.

Question 40

What case demonstrates that an ‘operating’ injury would prevent medical intervention from breaking the chain of causation?

Answer 40

R v Smith (1959)

2 soldiers had a fight and one was stabbed in the lung. The victim was dropped when carried to medical centre by other soldiers. medical centre gave him artificial respiration by pressing on his chest, making the injury worse and he died. the poor treatment affected his chances of recovery but original attacker is still guilty of his murder.