Actus Reus (Criminal Conduct) Flashcards
For a person to be found guilty of a criminal offence you must show that he/she:
- acted in a particular way
- failed to act in a particular way (omissions), or
- brought about a state of affairs.
- must be shown that the defendant had the requisite mens rea at the time of carrying out the actus reus.
… This is the actus reus of an offence, i.e. the behavioural element of an offence.
When proving the required actus reus you must show:
- that the defendant’s conduct was voluntary, and
* that it occurred while the defendant still had the requisite mens rea.
In order to prove the required actus reus you must show hat the defendant’s conduct was voluntary.
What is a voluntary act?
A voluntary act is an act controlled and undertaken by that person. They must act by their own volition/ free will.
It must be shown that the defendant had the requisite mens rea at the time of carrying out the actus reus.
Is there a need for that ‘state of mind’ to remain unchanged throughout the entire commission of the offence?
No – R v Jakeman (1983)
Person A poisons Person B intending to kill them but after administering the poison Person A changes their mind. He is still liable, even if he tries to rectify what he has done.
At what point is an offence complete if the actus reus is a continuing act, as ‘appropriation’ is, without any particular mens rea?
The required ‘state of mind’ may come later while the actus reus is still continuing.
If this happens, whereby the mens rea ‘catches up’ with the actus reus, the offence is complete at the first moment that the two elements (actus reus and mens rea) unite.
However, although Criminal conduct is most often associated with actions, can a person commit an offence by failing to act in certain situations?
Yes! Most of the occasions where failure or omission will attract liability are where a DUTY to act has been created. Such a DUTY can arise from a number of circumstances, the main ones being:
D Dangerous situation created by the defendant.
U Under statute, contract or a person’s public ‘office’.
T Taken it upon him/herself
Y Young person
Offences can be committed by failing to act.
Most of the occasions which will attract liability are where a D U T Y to act has been created.
What is the ‘D’ aspect of this? Case Study?
Dangerous situation created by the defendant.
For example, in R v Miller [1983] defendant was ‘sleeping rough’ and entered a building and fell asleep on a mattress while smoking a cigarette.
When he awoke, he saw the mattress was smouldering but instead of calling for help or doing anything about the smouldering mattress, he simply moved into another room in the building and fell asleep.
The mattress caught fire and the fire spread to the rest of the building. The defendant was convicted of arson, not for starting the fire but for failing to do anything about it.
Offences can be committed by failing to act.
Most of the occasions which will attract liability are where a D U T Y to act has been created.
What is the ‘U’ aspect of this? Case Study?
Under statute, contract or a person’s public ‘office’, e.g:
- Statute—a driver who is involved in a damage or injury accident fails to stop at the scene of the accident (s. 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988), a driver who fails to cooperate with a preliminary test procedure (s. 6(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988) or a person who does not disclose information in relation to terrorism (s. 19 of the Terrorism Act 2000).
- Contract—a crossing keeper omitted to close the gates (a job that was part of his contractual obligations) at a level crossing and a person was subsequently killed by a passing train (R v Pittwood (1902)).
- Public office—whilst on duty, a police officer stood aside and watched as a man was beaten to death outside a nightclub. The officer then left the scene, without calling for assistance or summoning an ambulance. For this, the officer was convicted of the common law offence of misconduct in a public office (R v Dytham [1979])
Offences can be committed by failing to act.
Most of the occasions which will attract liability are where a D U T Y to act has been created.
What is the ‘T’ aspect of this? Case Study?
Taken it upon him/herself—
The defendant voluntarily undertakes to care for another who is unable to care for him/herself as a result of age, illness or infirmity and then fails to care for that person.
For example, in R v Stone [1977] the defendant accepted a duty to care for her partner’s mentally ill sister who subsequently died from neglect.
Offences can be committed by failing to act.
Most of the occasions which will attract liability are where a D U T Y to act has been created.
What is the ‘Y’ aspect of this? Case Study?
Young person—
in circumstances where the defendant is in a parental relationship with a child or a young person, i.e. an obligation exists for the parent to look after the health and welfare of the child and he/she does not do so.
There are two ways of attracting criminal liability for an offence: as a principal offender or an accessory.
What is a principal offender?
This is one whose conduct has met all the requirements of the particular offence. The defendant who is responsible for the whole offence.
There are two ways of attracting criminal liability for an offence: as a principal offender or an accessory.
What is an accessory?
An accessory is someone who helped in or brought about the commission of the offence.
If an accessory ‘aids, abets, counsels or procures’ the commission of an offence, he/she will be treated by a court in the same way as a principal offender for an indictable offence.
The expression ‘aid, abet, counsel and procure’ is generally used in its entirety when charging a defendant, without separating out the particular element that applies.
Generally speaking, the expressions mean as follows:
- aiding = giving help, support or assistance
- abetting = inciting, instigating or encouraging.
- counselling = advising or instructing
- procuring = bringing about.
If an accessory is present at the scene of a crime when it is committed, his/her presence may amount to encouragement which would support a charge of aiding or abetting if he/she was there as part of an agreement in respect of the principal offence.
What of the situation where the accessory is not present during the substantive offence? The position can be summarised as follows:
It is necessary to prove intentional assistance by the accessory (A) in acts which they knew were steps taken by the principal offender (P) towards the commission of the crime. Therefore the prosecution must prove:
- an act done by A;
- which in fact assisted the later commission of the offence;
- that A did the act deliberately realising that it was capable of assisting the offence;
- that A, at the time of doing the act, contemplated the commission of the offence by P; and
- that when doing the act A intended to assist P.
Does ‘counselling’ an offence require a causal link?
Does ‘procuring’ an offence require a causal link?
No as long as the principal offender is aware of the ‘counsellor’s’ advice or encouragement, the latter will be guilty as an accessory, even if the principal would have committed the offence anyway (Attorney-General v Able [1984] QB 795).
If you are trying to show that a defendant procured an offence you must show a causal link between his/her conduct and the offence (Attorney-General’s Reference (No. 1 of 1975) [1975] QB 773).
