Actus Reus cases

Question 1

Larsonneur (1933)

not acting voluntarily

Answer 1

• The D was ordered to leave the UK and she did so voluntarily, going to Eire (the Republic of Ireland)
• The Irish police deported her back against her will and she was promptly arrested and charged with being ‘an alien to whom leave to land in the UK had been refused’.
• Even though she did not act voluntarily, she was convicted. This is a ‘state of affairs’ case or, a strict liability one.

Question 2

Dytham (1979)

neglecting his duty

Answer 2

• D was a police officer on duty who was standing outside a night club. A serious fight broke out very close to him and one person was kicked to death.
• Dytham did not intervene or call for emergency assistance. Once the fight was over he told a bystander that he was going off duty and promptly left the scene.
• He was convicted of wilful neglect of his duty and misconduct in public office.

Question 3

Gibbins and Proctor (1918)

a duty because of a relationship

Answer 3

• A father and his partner deliberately neglected and starved a 7 year old girl to death. They were both convicted of murder.
• The father had a duty to feed the girl as he was her parent. On the facts of the case it was found the father’s partner had undertaken the role to look after the girl, including feeding her.
• The failure to feed the girl was deliberate and done with the intention to harm so they were guilty of murder.

Question 4

Stone and Dobinson (1977)

a duty which has been undertaken voluntarily

Answer 4

• Stone’s elder sister came to live with the 2 defendants’ She was an eccentric who stayed in her room and failed to eat. She became bedridden and eventually died of malnutrition.
• Evidence showed that Dobinson had prepared food for her and helped her wash. However, both of the defendants were found guilty of manslaughter since they had undertaken a duty of care and had failed to either help her or get help for her.

Question 5

Evans (2009)

state of affairs set in motion by d so a duty arose

Answer 5

• The victim was aged 16 and lived with her mother and older half sister. The V was a drug addict and the half sister bought some heroin and gave it to her. The V self injected and overdosed. The mother and half sister did not summon help but put her to bed hoping she would recover, but she died.
• The mother was convicted of gross negligence manslaughter - she clearly owed a duty of care to V as she was her daughter.
• The half sister tried to argue that as a sister she did not owe a duty. The CofA responded that she had helped create a state of affairs that therefore put the victims life in danger and therefore she should be charged.

Question 6

Miller (1983)

failed to intervene

Answer 6

• Miller lived in a squat and he fell asleep while smoking a cigarette. He woke up to find the mattress on fire and so proceeded to get up and went to sleep in another room. The house caught fire and he was convicted of arson.
• It was his failure to deal with the fire that made him guilty. He had set in motion a chain of events and was expected to deal with the fire either by himself if it was reasonable to do so (which it was) or he should have summoned the fire brigade. His omission to act was enough for the AR of arson.

Question 7

Santa-Bermeduz (2003)

d set in motion a chain of events

Answer 7

• The d was asked by a female officer if he had any needles or sharp objects on him. He replied ‘no’ and when the officer went to search him, she was injured by a needle in his pocket. He was convicted of a s47 Assault (assault causing ABH)
• Failure to tell the police officer when asked and knowing there was a danger was enough for the AR of ABH. He had created a state of affairs that led directly to the injury.

Question 8

Khan and Khan (1998)

problems of deciding when a duty exists

Answer 8

• The d’s supplied heroin to a new user who administered it herself and then collapsed. The d’s left the flat and on their return found her dead.
• Their conviction for unlawful manslaughter was quashed but the CofA said there could be situations where a duty to summon medical assistance could arise. They also stated obiter that duty situations could be extended to other areas.

Question 9

Lowe (1973)

involuntary manslaughter and omissions

Answer 9

• The D who had a low IQ, was the father of a 9 week old baby that became ill and died. He said that he’d told the baby’s mother to take the child to the doctor.
• The child’s mother had particularly low intelligence.
• The D’s conviction for unlawful act manslaughter was quashed as there had not been an ‘act’.
• If the charge had been gross negligence manslaughter then he may well have been convicted since there was a duty situation.

Question 10

Airedale NHS Trust V Bland (1993)

The duty of doctors

Answer 10

• Tony Bland was a victim of the Hillsborough disaster in 1989. He had severe brain damage and had been left in a vegetative state - he was fed through tubes in hospital but did not need ventilating. The doctors asked for a ruling from the court so that they could stop feeding him.
• The court ruled that they could stop feeding him even though it was clear he would die as a result. The doctors were acting in his best interest.

Question 11

CAUSATION CASES

Pagett (1983)

(factual cause - guilty under the ‘but for’ test)

Answer 11

• The D held his pregnant girlfriend in front of him as a human shield in a shoot out with police. The police had asked him to surrender but he had refused and the girl was shot dead.
• Pagett was guilty of manslaughter - his girlfriend would not have died ‘but for’ him using her as a human shield.
• ‘in law the accused’s act need not be the sole cause, or even the main cause, of the V’s death, it being enough that his act contributed significantly to the death’.

Question 12

White (1910)

factual cause - another ‘but for’ case

Answer 12

• The D put cyanide into his mothers tea intending to kill her. She died of a heart attack before she could drink it. The D was not guilty of the factual cause of death, but on the facts, he was guilty of attempted murder.
• The facts do not satisfy the ‘but for’ test

Question 13

Kimsey (1996)

legal cause - have to have more than a slight or trifling link

Answer 13

• The D was involved in a high speed car chase with a friend. D lost control of her car and crashed into the friend killing her. Evidence as to her competency whilst driving was unclear.
• Held by the CofA - the actions of the D do not have to be the principal or substantial cause of death but a cause that has more than a slight or trifl

Question 14

Marchant and Muntz (2004)

Answer 14

• Marchat, one of the D’s was driving an agricultural vehicle that had ‘tynes’ - metre long spikes for grabbing hay. He was stopped because he should not have taken this vehicle onto a public road.
• A motorcyclist collided with the stationary vehicle at very high speed. The rider became impaled on the tynes and died.
• Held - not guilty of causing the death. Hitting the tynes at such speed would inevitably cause serious injury or death. Even if the tynes had been covered, this would have made little difference. No minimal cause.

Question 15

Blaue (1975)

the ‘thin skull’ rule

Answer 15

• A young woman was stabbed by the D. She was told that she needed a blood transfusion to save her life. She refused as she was a Jehovah’s Witness and she died.
• The D was found guilty of murder, although this was reduced to manslaughter as he successfully pleaded diminished responsibility.
• Held - the D has to take his victim as he finds him, including the V’s physical, psychological and religious beliefs.

Question 16

Dear (1996)

Answer 16

• The D slashed the V several times with a Stanley knife. The V did not seek medical assistance, and made the bleeding worse by opening the wounds further. The V dies from a loss of blood. The D’s conviction for murder was upheld by the CofA.
• The wounds were an operating and significant cause of death. Even if the V had effectively decided to commit suicide by allowing the wounds to continue bleeding, they were nonetheless the cause of death.

Question 17

Roberts (1971)

(victim’s own act)

(similar to Marjoram-2000)

Answer 17

• Roberts had given a lift to a girl, he made sexual advances toward her whilst driving. She reacted by exiting the car whilst it was travelling at between 20-40mph.
• She suffered injuries as a result and Roberts was found guilty of causing her injuries.
• Held - the V’s response was reasonably foreseeable so did not break the chain of causation. Roberts had not injured the girl directly, but the intervening acts were, in the circumstances, reasonably foreseeable.

Question 18

Marjoram (2000)

(victim’s own act)

(similar to Roberts-1971)

Answer 18

• The D and several other people were kicking the door of the V’s hostel room and shouting threats at him. The only escape for the V was the window and he jumped out to get away from the D.
• He was seriously injured and the conviction for inflicting GBH was upheld by the CofA.
• It was reasonably foreseeable that the V should feel under severe threat of violence and would therefore try to get away.

Question 19

Williams (1992)

unreasonable reaction to break the chain of causation

Answer 19

• The V was a hitchhiker who jumped from a car travelling at 30mph and died from head injuries.
• Evidence indicated that the driver had attempted to steal the V’s wallet.
• Held - the V’s act had to be reasonably foreseeable and in proportion to the threat. In this case the V’s voluntary act amounted to a ‘novus actus intervenus’ that broke the chain of causation. Jumping out of a car as a response to attempted theft broke the chain of causation.

Question 20

Smith (1959)

medical treatment

Answer 20

• 2 soldiers had a fight in their barracks; Smith stabbed the other in the lung. The V was accidentally dropped by other soldiers on the way to medical treatment.
• The treatment he received was very poor and it was found that it probably lowered his chances of recovery by 75%.
• However, Smith was still found guilty of causing the death.
• The D was guilty because the original stab wound was still an ‘operating’ and ‘substantial’ cause of death.

Question 21

Cheshire (1991)

medical treatment

Answer 21

• Cheshire shot the V in the thigh and stomach and as a result he required major surgery and a tracheotomy.
• There were rare complications that the doctors failed to diagnose and the V died 2 months after the shooting when the original injuries had virtually healed.
• Cheshire was held responsible for the death.
• Negligent treatment does not remove the accused’s responsibility for his actions unless it is so potent in itself in causing the death and independent that it made the contribution made by his acts insignificant.
• It could be argued that the V would not have needed treatment ‘but for’ the D’s acts.

Question 22

Jordan (1956)

medical treatment - so negligent it broke the chain of causation

Answer 22

• The V had been stabbed in the stomach. His treatment was proceeding well and he had nearly recovered when he was given an antibiotic that he was severely allergic to.
• It was known that he was allergic and the doctor’s administration of the antibiotic was found to be highly negligent and ‘palpably wrong’. The V died.
• Held - the actions of the doctor were so independant and in themselves so wrong that they broke the chain of causation. The doctor was found responsible for the death.

Question 23

Malcherek (1981)

life-support machines

Answer 23

• The D stabbed his wife in the stomach. She was placed on a lift support machine. Tests revealed she was in fact brain dead so a decision was taken to switch off the machine.
• The D tried to argue that the action of the doctor’s killed his wife.
• The ‘substantial and operating’ cause at the time of death was the stabbing and the doctor’s attempts to save her life and to switch off the machine did not break the chain of causation.