actus reus, omissions and causation

Question 1

what does actus reus mean in latin

Answer 1

guilty act

Question 2

what is a strict liability offence

Answer 2

an offence that only requires actus reus to be proven (not mens rea)

Question 3

what is a result crime

Answer 3

requires the actus reus to cause a particlular end result, eg if you punch someone it could be abh or gbh or murder depending on the injury

Question 4

what is a conduct crime

Answer 4

The actus reus is simply a prohibited conduct

Question 5

what is a state of affairs crime

Answer 5

Requires a particular circumstance, eg burglary

Question 6

what is an ommission

Answer 6

crime committed by failure to act (an exception the the fact that there is no ‘ good Samaritan’ rule in the uk)

Question 7

what is the leading case for contractual duty

Answer 7

R v Pitwood, railway crossing keeper failed to shut the gates which caused a train and car to collide

Question 8

what is the leading case for special relationship

Answer 8

R v gibbons and proctor. parents failed to feed their child and the child died

Question 9

what is the case for voluntary assumed responsibility of another

Answer 9

R v stone and dobinson, stone’s elderly sister came to live with D, she became ill and was unable to take care of herself and died

Question 10

what is the case for official position duty

Answer 10

R v Dytham, police officer witnessed a violent attack and did not step in. gulty of ‘misconduct in a public office’

Question 11

what is the case for creating a dangerous situation

Answer 11

R v Miller, squatter accidentally started a fireand failed to try and stop it.

Question 12

what is the case for statutory duty

Answer 12

greener v DDP, bull terrier escaped and netered a garden where it bit a young child

Question 13

what is the second exception to the rule that a person is generally not liable for their ommisions

Answer 13

Act of parliament can make criminal liability for an omission, for example the road traffic act 1988 makes it illegal if a driver fails to provide a breath sample to the police

Question 14

what are the six main ommissions

Answer 14

• contractual duty
• statutory duty
• official position
• special relationship duty
• voluntary assumed responsibility for another
• creating a dangerous situation

Question 15

describe the term used to define whether d’s conduct caused the result

Answer 15

• chain of causation

- if their is a link between d’s action and the consequence or has someone/something broke the chain of causation

Question 16

what is the three stage test for causation

Answer 16

1. were d’s actions the factual cause
2. were d’s actions the legal cause
3. were there any intervening acts

Question 17

describe how the factual cause is established and what is the leading case for this

Answer 17

• the but for test, ‘but for’ the defendants actions would the result have happened
• r v white, d intended to kill his mother with poison but she died of an unrelated heart attack before taking the poison. d could not be convicted for her death because but for his actions she still would have died.

Question 18

describe how legal causation is established and the leading case

Answer 18

• must be shown that the defendants action/ ommission has contributed in a ‘more than minimal’ way- de minimis rule.
• r v kimsey, d and gf were in high speed car chase, gf died. there was a more than minimal link so d was convicted, the act does not have to be a substantial cause of the outcome.

Question 19

what are the four recognised types of intervening acts and the leading cases for each

Answer 19

1. medical treatment. r v jordan, d stabbed v and was convicted with murder, on appeal it was uncovered that doctors gave v a drug that was described as ‘palpably wrong’ so the conviction was quashed.
2. the victim can break the chain of causation if they act in an unreasonable way. r v roberts, d was giving v a lift and began touching her clothes, v jumped out of car bc of this. d was held liable for v’s injuries as her actions were reasonable foreseeable.
3. a third party can break the chain if their actions are considered to be unreasonable, r v paggett
4. natural / unpredictable events can break the chain. no cases for this though.

Question 20

describe the thin skull rule and a case

Answer 20

one thing that will never break the chain of causation is the ‘suseptability of the victim’. a defendant should take their victim how they found them.
- r v blaue, d stabbed victim, victim refused to have blood transfusion due to religion so died. d was guilty even if she would have survived if she had agreed to blood transfusion.