Actus Reus - Consequences and their causes

Question 0

Types of Actus reus

Answer 0

State of affairs
Surrounding circumstances
Conduct
Result
Conduct and Result

Question 1

3 stages for establishing causation

Answer 1

1. Establish a chain of causation in fact between D’s act and the result.
2. Establish a chain of causation in law between D’s acts and the result.
3. The chain of causation must not be broken by an intervention.

Question 2

State of Affairs

Answer 2

Situation in which the defendant is found, irrespective of how came to be in it.

example: possession of illegal drugs

Question 3

Surrounding Circumstance

Answer 3

The circumstances surrounding the defendants conduct criminalizes otherwise lawful conduct.

Example: Rape (sexual intercourse and the absence of consent)

Question 4

Conduct

Answer 4

Defendants behaviour is prohibited irrespective of whether it leads to negative consequences.

Example: Fraud
Driving whilst disqualified

Question 5

Result

Answer 5

A prohibited consequence irrespective of how it was brought about

Example: Murder
Causing Grievous Bodily Harm with intent

Question 6

Conduct and Result

Answer 6

A prohibited outcome that has to be caused ina particular way by specific conduct.

Example: Arson (causing criminal damage with fire)

Question 7

‘Result Crimes

Answer 7

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.

Question 8

Causation

Answer 8

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.

Question 9

Pagett

Answer 9

pagett

Question 10

Factual Causation

[White 1910] [Carey 2006]

Answer 10

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.

Question 11

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.

Answer 11

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.

Question 12

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

Answer 12

Question of fact of fact for the jury, determined by the ‘But for test’

Question 13

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.

Answer 13

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.

Question 14

Legal causation

Answer 14

• 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]

Question 15

Smith [199]

Answer 15

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.

Question 16

De minimus principle

Answer 16

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.

Question 17

The cause must be attributable to the culpable act.

Answer 17

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.

Question 18

Thin skull rule

Answer 18

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.

Question 19

Novus actus interveniens = New act intervening

Answer 19

*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.

Question 20

3 categories of intervening acts:

Answer 20

1. Act of God/nature
2. Victims acts
3. Third party acts

*an act done instinctively for the purposes of self-preservation will not break the chain of causation. Pagett[1983]

Question 21

Pagett [1983]

Causation (intervening acts)

Answer 21

– 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.

Question 22

Act of Victim

Answer 22

• 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]

Question 23

When a victim dies as a result of fright:

Answer 23

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]

Question 24

where the victim neglects to treat an injury inflicted on him and death results

Answer 24

Holland (1841) - d injured victims finger - v rejected amputation, became infected and v died from infection.
Question for jury was whether in the end the wound inflicted by the prisoner was the cause of death? Jury convicted

Dear[1996]
V was attacked with a knife - v was stitched wounds reopened and v did not seek medical care and died. D was convicted.

Question 25

Extraordinary Medical negligence

Answer 25

This may constitute an intervening act but is very rare; (Jordan)

D was not held to be cause of v death - v received very negligent medical treatment after the original wounds had nearly healed.

Question 26

Any negligent medical treatment must now be independent of d original act and extraordinarily bad.

Answer 26

Chesire (1991)