Booklet 2 - Actus Reus Flashcards
What is actus reus?
The guilty act - physical element of the crime
It must be committed deliberately and voluntarily by the defendant
Describe the Hill v Baxter case (1958).
- The defendant claimed to have become unconscious as a result of being overcome by sudden illness (so claimed that he acted involuntarily)
- Court (Queens Bench) upheld the conviction as he was “in control of the car”
- They gave a hypothetical example of a swarm of bees flying into your car which would cause an involuntary action
Describe the Leicester v Pearson (1952) case.
REMINDER: there must be a voluntary actus reus so the conduct must be voluntary.
- A car driver was prosecuted for failing to give precedence to a pedestrian on a zebra crossing
- It was shown that his car had been pushed by a car hitting him.
- He was acquitted as he did not act voluntarily
Actus reus may consist of…
- Conduct (a ‘doing’ crime)
- Result (some crimes must produce a consequence)
- State of Affairs (a ‘being’ crime) - otherwise known as Absolute Liability
- Omission (a failure to act)
What are state of affairs/absolute liability crimes?
- The defendant has not acted voluntarily but has still been convicted of a crime
- They are ‘being’ rather than doing crimes
- No mens rea needed
Describe the case of R v Larsonneur (1933).
- A Frenchwoman was deported against her will from Ireland
- She was brought to the England by the police, against her will.
- Arrested on arrival for being an illegal immigrant in the UK
- Found guilty as no mens rea required as she was found there
Describe the case of Winzar v CC Kent (1983)
- Defendant found drunk in hospital and asked to leave
- Refused and so police removed him and put them in their car, which was parked on a highway
- Police arrested him for being found drunk on a highway
- Found guilty as no mens rea required and was still there intoxicated
What are the 6 ways a duty can exist?
- Statutory duty
- A duty because of a relationship
- A duty which has been taken of voluntarily
- A contractual duty
- A duty through one’s official position
- A duty which arises because the defendant has created a dangerous situation
Name and describe a case for the relationship duty.
- Gibbons and Proctor (1918)
- A child’s father and his mistress failed to feed the child
- The child died of starvation
- They were guilty of murder
Name and describe a case for the voluntary duty.
- Stone and Dobinson (1977)
- Stone’s elderly sister came to live with the defendant
- She became ill and unable to look after herself, and then passed away
- The 2 defendants were guilty of manslaughter due to failing to care and summon help when she became helpless
Name and describe a case for the contractual duty.
- Pittwood (1902)
- Railway crossing keeper omitted to shut the gates
- A person crossing the line was struck and killed by a train
- Guilty of manslaughter for failing to do his job properly
Name and describe a case for the official position duty.
- Dytham (1979)
- A police officer witnessed a violent attack on the victim
- Took no steps to intervene or summon help and then drove away from the scene
- The officer was guilty of wilfully and without reasonable excuse neglecting to perform his duty
Name and describe a case for the defendant causing a dangerous situation duty (begins with M).
- Miller (1983)
- A squatter accidentally caused a fire
- When he realised this, he left the room and went to sleep in another room
- Guilty of arson as he failed to summon help or attempt to put it out
Name and describe a case for the defendant causing a dangerous situation duty (begins with S-B).
- Santana-Bermudez (2003)
- A Policewoman searched the defendant and questioned whether he had anything on him that could harm the police officer.
- The policewoman was pricked by a needle in the defendants pocket
- Defendant guilty of assault occasioning ABH due to failing to give warning and creating a dangerous situation
What can the chain of causation be broken by? (the latin words)
- Novus actus interveniens (the intervening act)
What 3 things need to be proven before you can say the defendants act/omission caused the consequence?
- Factual causation
- Legal causation
- No intervening acts
What is factual causation and what test does it use?
- The defendant caused the consequence based on the facts
- The ‘but for’ test where if it were not ‘but for’ their actions, the consequence would not have happened.
Name and describe the case that links in with factual causation and the ‘but for’ test.
- Pagett (1983)
- Defendant used his girlfriend as a human shield against police officers, where she was killed by shots fired at him.
- If it were not ‘but for’ his actions, his girlfriend would not have been killed.
What is legal causation?
- Defendant’s act must be the ‘more than minimal’ cause of the consequence
- Defendant’s conduct need not be the only cause, provided that his contribution was more than minimal - therefore they will still be liable.
Name and describe the case that represents the ‘de minimis principle’ in legal causation?
- R v Kimsey (1996)
- High speed car chase with a friend
- Friends car lost control and other driver was killed
- D’s driving did not have to be the main cause of death so long as there was more than a “trifling link”
^ causation = death by dangerous driving
What is the thin skull test?
Where you must take your victim as you find them
Name and describe the case that represents the thin skull test.
- R v Blaue (1985)
- Defendant stabbed the victim
- The victim refused to have a blood transfusion on religious grounds
- As a result, they died of their wounds
- Defendant still guilty as it was the injury that ultimately caused her death as you must take your victim as you find them
What 3 things can the chain of causation be broken by?
- The act of a third party
- The victim’s own act
- A natural but unpredictable event
Medical treatment is unlikely to break the chain of causation unless…
It is so independent of the defendant’s act and ‘in itself so potent in causing death’ that the defendant’s acts are insignificant.
Describe the case Smith (1959)
Clue: Involved with medical treatment
- Defendant stabbed soldier in barrack-room brawl
- On the way to the doctor he was dropped twice, waited a while to be seen and was given thoroughly bad treatment
- Defendant still guilty of causing victim’s death as the stabbing was the more than minimal cause and the treatment was not bad enough to break the chain of causation
Describe the case of Jordan (1956)
Clue: Involved with medical treatment
- Defendant stabbed victim and was treated in hospital
- At the time of death, the original wound has almost healed
- Death caused by sever allergic reaction when given a drug which he was known to be allergic to.
- Defendant not guilty as chain of causation broken as the doctors knew of his allergy, neglected this fact and therefore caused him to die.
Describe the case of Cheshire (1991)
Clue: Involved with medical treatment
- Defendant shot the victim after an argument, seriously wounding him in the leg and stomach
- Died in the hospital after breathing complications due to negligent treatment (original wounds no longer life threatening at this time)
- Defendant still guilty as the shooting was the more than minimal cause and would not be in hospital if it were not but for the defendants actions.
Describe the case of R v Roberts (1972)
- Defendant gave the victim a lift after work
- He began to touch her clothes, and so the victim jumped from the car as she thought he was going to rape her
- Defendant responsible for causing her injuries as her actions were reasonable and foreseeable as she was trying to get away from a dangerous situation
What test is used to decide whether the victim’s act broke the chain of causation?
The daftness test
- If the victim does something daft, then the defendant is not to blame
Describe the case Williams and Davies (1992)
- A hitchhiker jumped from the defendant’s moving car and died from his injuries
- Apparently he was being robbed at the time
- Defendant not responsible for his death as the victim’s act was unpredictable and daft
