Actus Reus - Consequences and their causes Flashcards
Types of Actus reus
State of affairs Surrounding circumstances Conduct Result Conduct and Result
3 stages for establishing causation
- Establish a chain of causation in fact between D’s act and the result.
- Establish a chain of causation in law between D’s acts and the result.
- The chain of causation must not be broken by an intervention.
State of Affairs
Situation in which the defendant is found, irrespective of how came to be in it.
example: possession of illegal drugs
Surrounding Circumstance
The circumstances surrounding the defendants conduct criminalizes otherwise lawful conduct.
Example: Rape (sexual intercourse and the absence of consent)
Conduct
Defendants behaviour is prohibited irrespective of whether it leads to negative consequences.
Example: Fraud
Driving whilst disqualified
Result
A prohibited consequence irrespective of how it was brought about
Example: Murder
Causing Grievous Bodily Harm with intent
Conduct and Result
A prohibited outcome that has to be caused ina particular way by specific conduct.
Example: Arson (causing criminal damage with fire)
‘Result Crimes
Are where the definition of the actus reus requires the prosecution to prove that the defendants conduct caused a prohibited result, or consequence.
Result crimes require proof of causation as one of the elements of the actus reus of the offence charged.
Causation
Question of fact for the jury. The jury must apply the legal principles which will have been explained to them by the judge [Pagett 1983]
Causation is an important aspect of the actus reus of all result crimes.
Prosecution must prove BOTH Factual and Legal causation.
Pagett
pagett
Factual Causation
[White 1910] [Carey 2006]
Determined by the (sine qua non ) ‘but for’ test.
This is a precondition of proof of causation, it is not enough to determine the causal link.
if the result would have occurred anyways, then causation has not occurred in fact.
R v White [1910]
Defendant put cyanid in mothers drink - mother died shortly after by heart failure. Mother would have died of heart failure regardless of the poison, therefore defendant was not the factual cause of her death.
But for the defendants actions would the victim have died?
YES- the defendant is not the factual cause of victims death.
NO- The defendant is the factual cause of the victims death.
Carey [2006]
A girl died after being punched in the face – the girl ran away, and collapsed after her run as she suffered from heart problems
Question of fact of fact for the jury, determined by the ‘But for test’
Can a non- event (omission) be a ‘But for’ cause of the consequence in any result crime?
Instan [1893] - D lived with her elderly aunt and made no attempt to help her aunt, gave her no food and did not seek medical care for her.
YES.
Instan [1893] Lord CJ;
There can be question that the failure of the prisoner to discharge her legal duty at least accelerated the death of the deceased, if it did not actually cause it.
Legal causation
- number of causes
- who was a significant cause
- which cause was ‘active’ at the time of death/injury
The law is clear if Ds conduct was a cause, not necessarily the only or main cause, he can be found to have the legal cause of the result; SMITH[1959]
Smith [199]
Victim dies of stab wound to the lung, was dropped twice before reaching medical help, received poor medical care.
Although the intervening acts contributed to the death, Smiths acts were still a substantial cause of the harm and were active at time of death.
De minimus principle
The law ignores trivialities
If the defendants act or omission only constitutes a minimal contribution to the victims death or injuries then it may be discounted under this principle.
The cause must be attributable to the culpable act.
Dalloway (1847)
Defendant was driving a horse and cart but was not holding onto the reins. A child ran out in front of the cart and was killed. D was charged with manslaughter.
The jury acquitted him, The evidence showed that even if the d had been holding onto the reins he would not have been able to stop in time.
Thin skull rule
Defendant must take his victim as he finds him.
Blaue [1975] - D, stabbed women. Women needed surgery. Women refused blood transfusion for religious beliefs. Women died.
Question: What caused death?
Answer: Stab wound inflicted by D.
Novus actus interveniens = New act intervening
*An intervening act is something which occurs after the defendants act that breaks the chain of causation and relieves the defendant of responsibility for the prohibited consequence.
3 categories of intervening acts:
- Act of God/nature
- Victims acts
- Third party acts
*an act done instinctively for the purposes of self-preservation will not break the chain of causation. Pagett[1983]
Pagett [1983]
Causation (intervening acts)
– man used his girlfriend as a human shield and began to open fire on police officers, the police fired back killing his girlfriend. Man was convicted of manslaughter.
Act of Victim
- Where the defendant has frightened the victim to the extent that the victim has killed or injured himself trying to escape the danger, then provided that the victims actions weren’t ‘so daft’ as to make it the victims own voluntary act then it will not break the chain of causation between the defendants conduct and the result.
Roberts [1971]]
Williams and Davies [1992]
When a victim dies as a result of fright:
example; the fear caused by defendants actions causes the victim to suffer a heart attack - then the thin skull rule applies; the d must take v as he finds him.
The abnormal state of the deceased health did not affect the question of was the death accelerated by the prisoners unlawful act. Hayward[1908]
