Core principles: Actus Reus

Question 1

How do you define criminal liability?

Answer 1

The prosecution must prove the defendant had:
* the actus reus (guilty action) and
* mens rea (guilty mind)
* the absence of a valid defence.

Question 2

What is actus reus?

Answer 2

It refers to the actions of
the defendant that are prohibited by law.

4 types of actus reus:
* conduct offence
* circumstances; and
* result offence
* omissions

Question 3

Actus reus: conduct offences?

Answer 3

Offences will only require
certain acts to have been committed by
the defendant to satisfy the actus reus.
( i.e blackmail)

Question 4

Actus reus: circumstances ?

Answer 4

The actus reus can also include the need for some particular surrounding circumstance
(i.e theft - the item needs to be belonging to another)

Question 5

Actus reus: omissions?

Answer 5

A defendant can be held to have committed the actus reus of an offence despite taking no action at all.

The criminal law will, in certain circumstances, impose a legal obligation to act which if breached could result in criminal liability.
(i.e lifeguard doesn’t help someone drowning)

Question 6

What are the different areas for omissions?

Answer 6

• Statutory duty
• Special relationship (doctors/patients ..)
• Voluntary assumption
  (choosing to take care of someone)
• Contractual
  (eg; gatekeeper forgetting to close the gate..)

*Creating a dangerous situation
(must take reasonable steps to counteract)

*Public office

Question 7

Actus reus: result offences?

Answer 7

It requires more than just the defendant’s action.
The action must lead to a specified consequence.

Must be proved that the action actually caused the result.
(i.e murder, manslaughter, criminal damage, and assault with GBH)

Question 8

Result offences: what causation does the prosecution need to prove?

Answer 8

2 aspects to causation which must be proved by the prosecution:

1. Factual causation-
   the jury must be satisfied that the acts or omissions of the accused were in fact the cause of the relevant consequence.
2. Legal causation-
   it must be established that the acts or omissions of the accused were a legal cause of that consequence.

Question 9

What is the first aspect of causation?

Answer 9

Factual causation:

The ‘but for’ test:

Must be proved that ‘but for’ the acts or omissions of the accused, the relevant consequence would not have occurred in the way that it did.

Question 10

What is the second aspect of causation?

Answer 10

Legal Causation:

The law will check the culpability of the defendant before imposing liability and it will require that the defendant is the ‘operating and substantial’ cause of the prohibited consequence.

Key principles:

• The defendant’s act must be the ‘substantial’ cause of the prohibited harm, R v Hughes.
• The consequence must be caused by the defendant’s culpable act, R v Dalloway.
• The defendant’s act need not be the only cause of the prohibited consequence, R v Benge.

Question 11

What are intervening acts for legal causation in result crimes?

Answer 11

novus actus interveniens;

Subsequent event or act of either the victim or a third party which renders the defendant’s part very small, breaking the chain of causation; defendant is not criminally liable.

• medical negligence
• acts of a third party
• acts of the victim
• thin skull rule
• natural events.

Question 12

What is the intervening act of Medical negligence?

Answer 12

only medical treatment so grossly negligent as to be a completely inappropriate response to the injury inflicted by the defendant would break the chain of causation.

Question 13

What is the intervening acts of a third party?

Answer 13

There may only be a break in the chain of causation if the actions of the third party were ‘free, deliberate and informed.’

Question 14

What is the intervening act of the victim that could break the chain of causation?

Answer 14

Three types of acts of the victim:

• ‘fright and flight’ cases
  if the victims reaction was not proportionate to the defendants actions.
• refusing medical treatment ;
  the injuries by the defendant are no longer the significant cause of death. (must take their victim as they find them -in both mind and body)
• suicide;
• if the injuries have healed THEN the suicide happens
• if it was a voluntary and informed decision.

Question 15

What is the intervening act of ‘thin skull rule’ that could break the chain of causation?

Answer 15

A person who inflicts harm on another cannot escape liability if the victim, owing to some pre-existing infirmity or peculiarity, suffers greater harm than would have been expected as a result of what the accused has done.

Question 16

What is the intervening act of natural events that could break the chain of causation?

Answer 16

Natural events will only break the chain of causation if they are ‘extraordinary’ and not reasonably foreseeable.