Actus Reus and Causation

Question 1

True or False: Someone creates a dangerous situation which they are aware of, and subsequently fails to summon appropriate help. They are under a duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate the results of their own actions, and if not will be held liable for the injuries to a victim arising from their actions (especially where the victim may have lived if they had received appropriate help).

Answer 1

True.

Question 2

Explain the burden of proof in relation to self-defence.

Answer 2

Where a defendant gives evidence of self-defence at trial, the burden is on the prosecution to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Question 3

Explain whether or not each of the following are intervening acts, breaking the chain of causation in relation to a defendant’s (D) liability:

a) victim who is directly threatened runs away, trips falls and dies from fractured skull;
b) woman sees someone else threatened and jumps off a moving train;
c) an ambulance taking the victim to hospital gets stuck in traffic and the victim dies form their injuries;
d) victim refusing blood transfusion;
e) victim suffer from haemophilia (lack of blood clotting), is stabbed by D and bleeds to death.

Answer 3

a) This does not break the chain of causation - the act is not free, deliberate and informed as the victim runs from the defendant threatening them;
b) Yes - her act is ‘so daft’ it constitutes her own voluntary act (as it is free, deliberate and informed). Chain of causation is therefore broken;
c) No - chain of causation is not broken as ambulance delays are reasonably foreseeable and is not a free, deliberate and informed act;
d) No - this does not break the chain of causation as a D takes victim as they find them. this applies to religious beliefs swell as physical conditions;
e) No - chain is not broken as D takes V as they find them. The medical condition therefore does not break the chain of causation.

Question 4

What is the general rule for liability in respect of omissions?

Answer 4

General rule is that omissions will not result in liability (but there are exceptions to this rule).

Question 5

Explain the concept statutory offences where the AR is an omission.

Answer 5

This will be in cases such as failing to provide a police officer with a breath sample after a road traffic collision, or parents failing to act under their established duty of care for children (under the Children Act 1989).

Question 6

Explain duties arising out of contract which may mean an omission leads to criminal liability.

Answer 6

• If person is under specific obligations of a contract to act in certain situations, a failure to comply with these can lead to criminal liability.
• Examples include:
  1) Railway workers in charge of gates;
  2) Those employed as carers/ healthcare professionals who could also be criminally liable for a homicide offence if they fail to take steps to prevent those in their care suffering from harm.
  3) Doctors and nurses (to care for patients);
  4) Members of emergency services (to take reasonable steps to safeguard public);
  5) Lifeguards (to ensure safety of people at swimming pool.

Question 7

Explain omission by special relationship which can result in criminal liability.

Answer 7

• Applies where there is a relationship of cost family ties (eg parent child or guardian child);
• Also applies where D voluntarily assumes responsibility/ undertakes to care for another who cannot care for themselves (eg due to mental health issues, infancy or ill health of the victim).

Question 8

Explain how one can be liable for creating a dangerous situation.

Answer 8

Liability may be found for an omission where D creates a dangerous situation and fails to take reasonable steps to mitigate the damage.

• Eg: failing to put handbrake on car, realising this and not returning to do so. The car then kills a child. It is not the death which makes D liable but rather their failure to mitigate such a risk by simply returning to put the handbrake on.

Question 9

Explain the principle of factual causation

Answer 9

D cannot be considered to be the cause of an event if the event would nave occurred in the exact same way without D’s act/ omission (ie but for D’s actions, would the hair still have occurred).

Question 10

Explain the overall principle of legal causation.

Answer 10

• D’s conduct must be a substantial and operating cause of the consequence.
• Note legal causation will only be considered where the prosecution cause D’s death.

Question 11

Explain the requirement (for legal causation) that the consequence must be attributable to D’s culpable act or omission.

Answer 11

Effectively means legal causation will only be established if result was due to D’s action.

Question 12

Explain the requirement (in relation to legal causation) that the culpable act must be more than a minimal cause of the consequence.

Answer 12

Prosecution must prove D’s contribution to the death is more than trivial or minimal.

Question 13

Explain the requirement for legal causation that the culpable act need not be the sole cause of the consequence.

Answer 13

There may be multiple causes, but that does not mean D is absolved of liability because his act is one of many. Effectively means more than one person can be liable for the same crime, but the presence of other causes of the result does not absolve a defendant of liability for their action/ omission.

Question 13

Explain the take the victim as you find them rule.

Answer 13

• D will take the victim as they find them. The fact a certain result is more likely due to victim’s mental/physical condition is irrelevant and does not absolve D from liability.
• Even something such as refusing a blood transfusion due to religious beliefs will not break the chain of causation here. D will take the victim as they find them.

Question 14

Give the three ways where the chain of causation may be broken.

Answer 14

1) Victim acts in a particular way;
2) Act by some other person intervenes between D’s conduct and the result; or
3) Some event occurs between D’s conduct and the end result.

Question 15

Explain the ‘victims own acts’ way in which the chain of causation may be broken.

Answer 15

General rule is if V does something after D’s initial act or omission, but before the consequence occurs, legal causation will not be established provided that intervention is ‘free, deliberate and informed (voluntary). In practice however this rarely applies, eg if V decided not to go to hospital for treatment to their injuries and subsequently dies, D will almost certainly still be held liable.

Question 16

What are the two exceptions to the rule of victims own acts which break the chain of causation?

Answer 16

1) Where V commits suicide;
2) Where V tries to escape.

Question 17

Explain how the courts view victim’s efforts to escape.

Answer 17

Can lead to D still being liable (eg if V jumps out of a moving car due to unwanted sexual advances D is liable due to v’s act not being free, uninformed and deliberate).
- However courts will find the chain is broken if V’s attempt at escape is so daft and risky as to make it their own voluntary act.

Question 18

Explain how the court’s view suicide in relation to the chain of causation.

Answer 18

Voluntary euthanasia will not necessarily break the chain of causation and the question will be whether it was reasonably foreseeable V wold commit suicide as a result of D’s actions.

Question 19

Explain how the chain of causation can be broken by third party intervention.

Answer 19

• Variety of situations where someone other than D or V acts;
• Common example - abundance is crashed on the way to the hospital and victim dies from their injuries due to this delay;
• D will therefore not be liable if a third party’s intervening act is either free, deliberate and informed or is not reasonably foreseeable.

Question 20

D uses girlfriend as human shield and she is shot by police. Does this break the chain of causation?

Answer 20

No. Police action here is not free, deliberate and informed, as they would have been acting instinctively out of self-defence and it was reasonably foreseeable to happen given D was shooting at the police.

Question 21

Can medical negligence break the chain of causation?

Answer 21

Yes but courts are very reluctant to find this is the case. As such provided the initial injury caused by D is still operating at the time, D will find it extremely difficult to escape liability on the basis of medical negligence breaking the chain of causation. IT will not therefore break the chain unless the medical negligence is so independent of D’s actions and so potent in causing death that it makes D’s initial contribution insignificant.

Question 22

Explain how intervening events break the chain of causation.

Answer 22

• Natural events (an act of god) may break chain but forgeability is key here.
• Eg leaving a victim unconscious at the side of a stream, which subsequently floods due to unnatural amounts of rain is unforeseeable and as such would absolve D of liability. However, leaving an unconscious victim on a beach, with the tide subsequently drowning them would be foreseeable and therefore not break the chain.
• Events other than natural ones may be relevant here. eg if D leaves V in a house which subsequently blows up from a gas explosion, this would break the chain.