Actus Reus & Mens Rea

Question 1

Actus reus

Answer 1

The guilty act

Question 2

Omission

Answer 2

Failure to act
Needs to be proved that the defendant:

• Was under a duty to act
• Breached their duty to act
• Their breach caused harm to the victim

Question 3

Statutory duty

Answer 3

Statute duties requiring people to act in a particular way, e.g s6 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 criminalizing drivers who fail to provide a sample of their breath when asked to do by a constable under certain circumstances.

Question 4

Contractual duty

Answer 4

When an individual is contacted too help another as they are under a duty to do so, e.g R v Pitwood [1902] - railway gatekeeper failed to lift a barrier to alert people that a train was coming & to deter them from going onto the train tracks.

Question 5

Familial duty to act

Answer 5

When family members are expected to help each other as they have natural ties of love & affection, e.g R v Gibson & Proctor [1918] - in which the father was expected to feed his biological child whereas his mistress had undertaken a voluntary duty to look after her.

Question 6

Voluntary duty

Answer 6

When the individual has assumed a duty to look after another whether it’s expressed or implied, e.g R v Stone & Dobinson [1977] in which the defendant’s sister who was suffering from anorexia nervosa came to live with them (implied that a mutual understanding of responsibility has been undertaken) yet they did nothing to look after her.

Question 7

Creating a dangerous situation / state of affairs

Answer 7

When someone has created a dangerous situation, e.g accidently starting a fire, they have a duty to prevent others from experiencing harm, e.g R v Miller [1981] - started a fire, went to sleep in another room as opposed to warning other individuals in the flat.

Question 8

Causation

Answer 8

When the consequence needs to be proved

Question 9

Factual causation

Answer 9

‘But for’ the defendant’s voluntary, unlawful act, would the prohibited result had happened?’, e.g R v White [1910] ‘but for’ the defendant poisoning the victim’s drink, she still would’ve passed due to her having a heart attack which medical evidence showed was unrelated to consuming poison.

Question 10

Legal causation

Answer 10

Was the defendant’s unlawful conduct a substantial, blameworthy & operating cause of the prohibited result?, e.g R v Hughes [2013] - the defendant’s role must be more than ‘de minimis’ (minimal), R v Dalloway [1847] - defendant charged with driving cart negligently but not holding onto the reins causing the victim’s death when they ran out onto the road, R v Rafferty [2007] - co - defendant’s killed the victim by drowning him

Question 11

Novus actus intervenians

Answer 11

Act of someone else has taken over responsibility for the chain of events meaning the defendant is no longer guilty. Must be free, voluntary & informed e.g R v Kennedy [2007] - the victim injecting themselves broke the chain of causation even though the defendant is still guilty of supplying the drugs.

Question 12

Victim’s own act

Answer 12

R v Kennedy [2007] - the victim injecting themselves broke the chain of causation even though the defendant is still guilty of supplying the drugs. Doesn’t apply in situations in which the victim’s act is reasonably foreseeable, e.g R v Roberts [1971] in which the victim jumping from the car to avoid the defendant’s unwanted sexual advances was foreseeable.

Question 13

Natural events

Answer 13

A freak of nature (unforeseeable event) breaks the chain as no one expects for it to occur, e.g R v Gowans [2003] in which the victim caught an infection while being in a coma, held that the coma put the victim in a vulnerable state to any infections, not independent enough.

Question 14

Act or omissions of third party

Answer 14

Medical treatment must be potent enough to break the chain of causation & resolve the victim of responsibility, e.g R v Jordan [1956] in which the hospital giving the defendant an overdose of antibiotics which he was allergic to breaks the chain of causation as it was so independent from the defendant’s initial actions & caused his death.

Question 15

Taking the victim as you find them / thin skull rule

Answer 15

Court of Appeal argued that the defendant must take the victim as a whole person, including any religious or physical characteristics that may make the injury worse or cause death, e.g R v Blau [1975] - the victim refusing a blood transfusion which could have saved her life after being stabbed, due to her religion is not substantial enough to break the chain of causation because the defendant should’ve taken those religious beliefs into account even if they didn’t know them. R v Dear [1996] - victim had suicidal thoughts & reopened his wounds & died, defendant should’ve taken victim as they found them & not wounded them; ARGUEMENT: defendant found out victim was sexually abusing daughter, is this sufficient for inflicting injury?

Question 16

Mens rea

Answer 16

Mental state of the defendant at the time of committing the unlawful act

Question 17

Direct intent

Answer 17

Most blameworthy mens rea, the unlawful act was the defendant’s aim or purpose, e.g Majewski [1977] - was intoxicated from drink & drugs & attacked police officers, held that drunken intent was still intent.

Question 18

Oblique (indirect) intent

Answer 18

Where the unlawful result was a virtual certainty, and D had foreseen it as such, e.g R v Woolin [1999 ] - threw 3-month-old baby against the wall to stop it from crying, arguing that he didn’t mean to cause it serious harm. The Court of Appeal held that it was a ‘substantial risk’ that harm would occur & the defendant foresaw that he would cause the victim harm.

Question 19

Recklessness

Answer 19

Defendant takes an unjustified risk which causes an unlawful result, e.g. R v Cunningham [1957] - wasn’t aware that removing gas meter to get money would have caused the gas to seep into the house next door causing the victim’s death.

Question 20

Subjective recklessness

Answer 20

The defendant is aware of the risk yet takes it anyway, e.g R v Woolin [1999]

Question 21

Negligence

Answer 21

The defendant has behaved in a way in which a reasonable person wouldn’t have, causing the victim’s death, e.g R v Miller ;[1981]

Question 22

Transferred malice

Answer 22

When AR & MR do not concern the same victim, but result in the same offence, MR is transferred and D may be liable: Latimer (1886) - bullet bounced on the floor & hit victim who the defendant didn’t intend to kill.

Question 23

Coincidence of AR & MR

Answer 23

The requirements for AR and MR must coincide in time: D must possess the MR for the offence at the time of performing the AR, e.g Fagan v MPC [1969] - defendant rolled car onto victim’s foot without realizing forming the AR, when he did, kept the wheel on victim’s foot forming the MR, coincided at the same time.