Actus Reus (+Cases) +Causation Flashcards
What are the two general principles of AR?
- D must have done the act voluntarily
- D must have done a positive Act
What 3 things can constitute an Actus Reus?
- An act
- An omission (failure to act)
- A state of Affairs
Is there a ‘duty to be a hero’ under English law?
No
Define ‘duty to be a hero’
One’s personal task to step up and act (not necessary)
What is a consequence crime?
For the offence to have been committed a certain consequence (result) must occur as a result of D’s actions
What is a conduct crime?
A crime can be committed by the actions of the D even if there is no consequence (result) of those actions
Example of a conduct crime?
Speeding
Hill v Baxter
Hint: voluntary AR
Examples of situations that may occur which would cause D to act involuntarily, meaning AR will not be proved
What type of crimes are an exception to the general principle,e that the act has to be voluntary?
State of Affairs crimes
What are State of affairs crimes?
Crimes where the AR is satisfied by D being in a particular circumstance at a particular time
Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent
Hint: State of Affairs crime
Being drunk on a public highway when he was removed by the police from a hospital and put back in his car parked outside. AR was satisfied despite his act not being committed voluntarily
Can some crimes be committed by omission?
Yes
R v Pitwood
Hint: omission
A contractual duty to act existed on the facts due to D’s employment as a railway-crossing keeper. D failed to shut the gate and V was killed by a train.
R v Dytham
Hint: omission
A police officer witnessed a violent attack on V and did not intervene (occupation of being a police officer suggests he should’ve
Which common Law duty to act was established in R v Miller?
D had created a dangerous situation by leaving a lit cigarette on his bed which caught fire. When he realised he left the room making no attempt to put it out or get help.
Stone and Dobbinson is an example of which common law duty to act?
D has taken on a voluntary duty toward the V.
Stone’s sister lived with Stone and his girlfriend. The sister died after becoming ill, S and D did not care for her. S owed her a duty of care as her sister, D was found to have taken on some caring role which amounted to a voluntary duty to act. Their failure to help her or get her help formed the AR of the crime.
Name a case that demonstrates the common law duty to act due to a special relationship between D and V
Gibbons and Proctor
A child’s father and his girlfriend failed to feed the child who died. They had a duty to care for V as a result of the parent and child relationship, D’s omission formed the AR of the crime.
What was the D in R v White found not guilty?
D was not the factual cause of V’s death, causation could not be proved.
D put poison in mother’s drink, V died of a heart attack before she could drink it all.
Factual causation test?
The ‘but for’ test, but for D’s actions, would V have been harmed?
In White, ‘but for’ D’s actions, the V would still have died - D not guilty
R v Pagett
Hint: ‘But For’
‘But for’ D’s actions V would not have died, factual causation was proved.
D used his girlfriend as a human shield as he fired at police, police fired back at D and killed V. D guilty of V’s manslaughter
Factual and legal causation must be proved for which type of crime and why?
Consequence crime
Because it must be proved that a certain consequence (result) was caused by D.
Legal Causation Test
It must be proved D’s actions are more than slight or trifling (the de minimis rule) in causing the criminal result
Legal causation in R v Kimsey?
Hint: cars
D & girlfriend were racing in separate cars. Girlfriend, V, died driving her car
D’s actions, despite V driving her own car, were considered to be more than trivial or trifling in causing the death of V
What 3 things can constitute an intervening act and break the chain of causation?
- V’s own actions
- Actions of a third party
- An unforeseen natural event
R v Cheshire Rule?
Hint: health
Medical treatment will only break the chain of causation where it is so independent of D’s actions that it renders D’s original act insignificant.
R v Jordan
Hint: novus actus
D stabbed V but V had almost healed when doctor administered drug V was allergic to, killing V
Actions of a third party (the doctors) because original wound had almost healed and doctor’s actions were palpably wrong
R v Williams
Hint: novus Actus
Ds picked up hitchhiker, V. V jumped out of moving car. There was insufficient evidence that Ds had done anything to V to cause this
D not guilty a V’s own actions were novus actus interveniens
Thin Skull Rule?
You must take your victim as you find them. A V’s own frailties will not break chain of causation
R v Blaue
Hint: thin skull
D stabbed V. V refused blood transfusion on religious grounds and died. D claimed V’s own actions broke chain of causation
Thin skull rule applies to religious beliefs, D had to ‘take his V as he found her’, including her beliefs. The chain of causation was not broken by V
What is AR
The physical element of the offence – actions or conduct that must be proved D did in order to be found liable for the criminal act
What must AR be accompanied by?
MR
Where do you find the AR for a specific offence?
If the offence is set out in an Act of Parliament, like Theft Act, the offence will be defined in the statute. Some offences were created through the common law, so we must look to the precedents – leading cases decided in the highest courts – to determine the specific AR for the offence. An example if murder
Positive principle?
D must do a positive act to commit the offence
Voluntary principle?
The voluntary principle ensures we do not criminalise those who are not ‘at fault’ – if you do something involuntarily, it can not be your fault. Society accepts that ‘fault’ generally lies at the heart of what makes conduct criminal and distinguishes a crime from an accident
Hill v Baxter.
If a D carries out the AR of a crime involuntarily they will not be guilty of the offence
Exceptions to the voluntary principle
State of affairs offences
Positive act principle (depth)
The second general principle is that the AR of an offence must be a positive act
The general rule is therefore that a D can not be guilty of a crime for failing to do something
Positive act principle: omissions
In some circumstances a failure to act – an omission – is sufficient to form the AR of an offence. There are 6 categories of omissions and these are the ONLY exception to the positive act principle
Omissions: Statutory offences
An Act of Parliament may create an offence where the AR is satisfied by an omission
Duty to act: contractural duty
Job related duty
Duty to act: special relationship
Gibbons v Proctor
Duty to Act: voluntary acceptance of responsibility
If there is no ‘special relationship’ a D may still be held liable for failing to act if they have undertaken a role to care for another person
(R v Stone & Dobinson)
Duty of care: professional duty
A person may hold an occupation, or official position, that requires them to protect others. In such cases, a failure to act (omission) can form the AR of a crime.
Dytham
Duty of Care: creating a dangerous situation
R v Miller
Result crime
By committing the AR the D must have caused a particular result - What is the ‘result’ of the AR of murder?
Conduct crime
The AR is doing a specified act, it does not matter what the result of doing that act is
For the motoring offence, it is irrelevant whether or not D causes an accident or any damage, they are guilty merely through their conduct of being drunk and in a car
‘But for’ test - factual causation
For a D to be found guilty of a result crime, it must be proved that he factually caused the result.
Would the victim have died anyway?
R v White (But For)
D could not be guilty of murder as she would have died anyway, so factual causation could not be proved
R v Pagett (But For)
D used his girlfriend as a human shield as he aimed and shot at a policeman. The police fired back and the girlfriend was killed.
‘But for the D using his girlfriend as a human shield, would she have died anyway?
Causation: legal Causation
Significant cause = D doesn’t have to be the only or even the main or substantial cause of the death, but they must be a cause. Iit is enough to show there is more than a slight or insignificant link between D’s actions and the resulting criminal
R v Kimsey
Causation: the ‘chain of causation’
Legal causation: there must be a direct link between the D’s actions and the criminal result, creating an unborken chain of causation that is not interrupted by a new, intervening act.
Intervening act: new acts will only break the chain if they are unforeseeable and significantly independent of D’s actions. If the chain is broken, legal causation has not been proved and D can not be liable
What can the chain of causation be broken by?
- An act of a third party (ie medical)
- An act of the victim (R v Roberts)
- A natural but unpredictable event (‘act of God’)
Causation: ‘thin skull’ rule
a D must ‘take his victim as he finds them’. If V has something unusual about their physical or mental state which makes an injury more serious, or death only likely because of a pre-existing condition, D will be liable for the more serious injury or death.
