Actus Reus and Causation

Question 1

What is Actus Reus?

Answer 1

guilty act. all other elements of offence

Question 2

What is Mens Rea?

Answer 2

guilty mind. Mental elements of an offence.

Question 3

What is Canon Law?

Answer 3

• to understand law we have to look at why it is created
• established that there must also be mental element combined with prohbited act.

Question 4

Three components of Actus Reus?

Answer 4

• conduct: voluntary act or omission
• Circumstance: surrounding and material conditions
• Consequences: of voluntary conduct

Question 5

Three components of Actus Reus- Assault Causing Bodily Harm?

Answer 5

• Conduct: application of force to victim (threat of force)
• Circumstance: such force was applied without consent
• Consequence: actual bodily harm

Question 6

Can you get in trouble with law for failure to act?

Answer 6

• accused may not be convicted on basic of omission unless they are under legal duty to act.

Question 7

Should there be a duty to act imposed?

Answer 7

• Law Reform Commission of Canada has recommended that the Criminal Code of Canada impose general duty on citizens to render aid in emergency.
• Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedom section 2 mentions that every human must come to aid anyone whos life in peril

Question 8

When does failing to act constitute a criminal offence?

Answer 8

• part b and c of s. 21(1) provide that someone becomes a party to offence if he or she omits to do anything to aid person.

Question 9

Nixon Case?

Answer 9

• accused was officer in charge of lock up
• charged with aggravated assault because did not check cell.
• accused had duty to protect victim who was a prisoner in his cell.
• where there is a duty to act and accused does not act, it is left to court to infer reason why.

Question 10

Must Actus and Mens Rea Coincide?

Answer 10

• actus reus continute over extended period
• crown must prove that mens rea was present at some point during that period

Question 11

Newell?

Answer 11

• stole meat from grocery store
• swung knife at security during scuffle in parking lot.
• charged with robbery, only convicted of theft
• mens rea and actus reus did not coincide

Question 12

Voluntariness?

Answer 12

• part of actus reus
• accused’s conduct should be voluntary to be convicted.
• “free will”

Question 13

Causation?

Answer 13

did you cause the crime and was it intended

Question 14

Nette (2011)?

Answer 14

• two issues that must be considered in determining whether accused’s conduct caused prohibited consequences: Factual and Legal Causation.

Question 15

Factual Causation?

Answer 15

• cause of death. actus reus.
• how victim came to their death
• whether consequence would not have happened if accused was not there

Question 16

What is death?

Answer 16

• irreversible cessation of all brain functions.

Question 17

Can someone still be convicted of murder if person was already dying?

Answer 17

• Yes committed even if accused only accelerates death of victim.
• S. 226

Question 18

What is homicide?

Answer 18

• causing death of human being. s.222
• directly or indirectly causes death of human being
• not all homicides are crimes (self defence)

Question 19

Two types of homicide?

Answer 19

• Culpable(legally responsible) and Non culpable homicide(not responsible)

Question 20

Non-culpable homicides?

Answer 20

• Justifiable: thinking ahead of it
• excusable: no thinking ahead, insanity, self-defense, defense of property, other people.
• authorized by law.

Question 21

What is first-degree murder?

Answer 21

• planned and deliberate
• victim part of special group of individuals: police officers, jail guards.
• victim killed during commission of hijacking aircraft, sexual assault, kidnapping…
• murder is contracted
• killed as a result of explosives
• killed as a result of criminal harrassment

Question 22

Meaning of planned and deliberate?

Answer 22

• planned: calculated scheme that is carefully thought out
• deliberate: considered, not impuslive.

Question 23

Abbott conviction?

Answer 23

• knew lunch schedule, left on his lunch, shot wife at home and went back to work.

Question 24

Conditions not for defence?

Answer 24

• would have lived if they received proper medical attention(s.224)
• died not from injuries inflicted by accused but by improper medical treatment(s.225)
• died from natural causes (s.226)
• consented to being killed. (s.14)

Question 25

Defences to First degree murder?

Answer 25

• provoked (s.232) wrongful act that is such a nature as to be sufficient to deprive ordinary person of power of self-control, only if accused acted upon it on the sudden and before there was time for his passion to cool.
• reduces it to manslaughter
• significant provocation

Question 26

What is second degree murder?

Answer 26

• death follows unlawful assault where no planning or deliberation
• death intended not planned
• not provocation

Question 27

Manslaughter?

Answer 27

• general intent not specific like murder.
• recklessly causing death or negligence
• s.234. culpable homicide that is not murder or infanticide is manslaughter
• bodily injury intended and caused death ensues
• no min sentence
• general intent: should know better

Question 28

R v. Mack?

Answer 28

• drug involving 3 males, one finds gun in house and killed one and injured other.
• criminal negligence in way gun was handled.

Question 29

R. v. Knuff(1980)?

Answer 29

• accused may be capable of forming intent to commit murder but was too intoxicated to plan and deliberate

Question 30

R. v. Conkie (1978)?

Answer 30

because murder is a specific intent offence an accused who is too drunk to form necessary intent must be acquitted of murder, but may be convicted of general intent.

Question 31

R. v. Smith (1959)?

Answer 31

• victim who sustained bayonet wound in fight with accused, was twice dropped on ground while being transported to hospital, and received improper medical attention
• died as a result of bayonet wound and accused convicted

Question 32

R. v. Shand (1971)?

Answer 32

• in order for accused to be convicted of murdering police officer, must be proved that he knew victim’s identity.
• Convicted of murdering police officer.

Question 33

Meaning of human being?

Answer 33

s. 223(1): child becomes human being when:
- it has breathed
- it has independent circulation
- or navel string is severed.
unborn child not human.
homicide if injury caused to fetus that dies after being born

Question 34

R. v. Prince?

Answer 34

• accussed attacked pregnant woman, child was born premature and died 19 mins after birth because of injuries suffered.
• accused was responsible

Question 35

What is Infanticide?

Answer 35

s. 233: by wilful act/omission causes death of newly-born child, if at time of act/omission she is not fully recovered from effects of giving birth to child.
- accused must be mother of new born under age of one.

Question 36

Elements of Infanticide?

Answer 36

• death must have been caused by willful act/omission of accused
• accused must not have fully recovered from effect of giving birth to child
• by reason of giving birth to child, accused’s balance of mind must have been disturbed.

Question 37

What is Palliative care?

Answer 37

Implications of principles are considered
- emphasized that if intent of medical practitioner is to relieve pain and not to kill patient, then fact that death is incidentally rushed by administration of pain-killing drug not responsible.

Question 38

What is Active Euthanasia?

Answer 38

• murder under criminal code
• s. 14: states that no person may consent to have death inflicted on them.

Question 39

Rodriguez?

Answer 39

• SCC upheld constitutional validity of prohibition in s. 241(b) of Code

Question 40

Refuse Treatment?

Answer 40

• competent patient has absolute right to refuse medical treatment, however, evem if this decision resuls in death
• passive euthanasia: not crime.

Question 41

Smithers (1977)

Answer 41

• principle that one takes one’s victim as one finds them.
• extraordinary physical defect may constitute one of effective cause of death, but accused still convicted if wound inflicted by them made significant contribution to death.

Question 42

Smithers Test of Causation?

Answer 42

• accused’s conduct must have had more than minimal impacy. Range of impact.

Question 43

Nette?

Answer 43

• SCC reaffirmed the validity of Smitehrs test for all homicide
• test should be re-worded so it will be more intelligible to juries.
• accused’s conduct must constitute significant cause to death of victim

Question 44

Harbottle (1993)?

Answer 44

• Substantial and Integral Cause.
• more restrictive test of causation must be used for first degree murder.

Question 45

Substantial and Integral Cause?

Answer 45

• must be proved that accused’s conduct was substantial and integral
• if intervening act breaks chain of causation between accused person’s assault on victim and ultimate death, then accused person will not be convicted of culpable homicide.
• crown establishes that victim’s death was foreseeable by accused the time they wounded victim.

Question 46

Criminal responsibility when improper medical treatment occurs?

Answer 46

accused person will be excused from criminal responsibility where impact of improper medical treatment is overwhelming.(s. 224)