Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Law A Level 1 > Booklet 2 - Actus Reus > Flashcards

Booklet 2 - Actus Reus Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MPRE flashcards MBE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
1
Q

What is actus reus?

A

The guilty act - physical element of the crime

It must be committed deliberately and voluntarily by the defendant

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Describe the Hill v Baxter case (1958).

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Describe the Leicester v Pearson (1952) case.

REMINDER: there must be a voluntary actus reus so the conduct must be voluntary.

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Actus reus may consist of…

A
  • 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)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What are state of affairs/absolute liability crimes?

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Describe the case of R v Larsonneur (1933).

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Describe the case of Winzar v CC Kent (1983)

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What are the 6 ways a duty can exist?

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Name and describe a case for the relationship duty.

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Name and describe a case for the voluntary duty.

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Name and describe a case for the contractual duty.

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Name and describe a case for the official position duty.

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Name and describe a case for the defendant causing a dangerous situation duty (begins with M).

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Name and describe a case for the defendant causing a dangerous situation duty (begins with S-B).

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What can the chain of causation be broken by? (the latin words)

A
  • Novus actus interveniens (the intervening act)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What 3 things need to be proven before you can say the defendants act/omission caused the consequence?

A
  • Factual causation
  • Legal causation
  • No intervening acts
17
Q

What is factual causation and what test does it use?

A
  • 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.

18
Q

Name and describe the case that links in with factual causation and the ‘but for’ test.

A
  • 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.
19
Q

What is legal causation?

A
  • 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.
20
Q

Name and describe the case that represents the ‘de minimis principle’ in legal causation?

A
  • 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
21
Q

What is the thin skull test?

A

Where you must take your victim as you find them

22
Q

Name and describe the case that represents the thin skull test.

A
  • 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
23
Q

What 3 things can the chain of causation be broken by?

A
  • The act of a third party
  • The victim’s own act
  • A natural but unpredictable event
24
Q

Medical treatment is unlikely to break the chain of causation unless…

A

It is so independent of the defendant’s act and ‘in itself so potent in causing death’ that the defendant’s acts are insignificant.

25
Q

Describe the case Smith (1959)

Clue: Involved with medical treatment

A
  • 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
26
Q

Describe the case of Jordan (1956)

Clue: Involved with medical treatment

A
  • 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.
27
Q

Describe the case of Cheshire (1991)

Clue: Involved with medical treatment

A
  • 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.
28
Q

Describe the case of R v Roberts (1972)

A
  • 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
29
Q

What test is used to decide whether the victim’s act broke the chain of causation?

A

The daftness test

- If the victim does something daft, then the defendant is not to blame

30
Q

Describe the case Williams and Davies (1992)

A
  • 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

Law A Level 1 (3 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions