Elements Of A Crime Flashcards
Actus Reus
Literally means ‘guilty act’
It is the physical element of a crime
(Must be a voluntary action to be found guilty)
When is an act not voluntary
An act done by the muscles without any control by the mind
Example:
Swatting bees while driving and loosing control
Hit on the head with a wrong, now unconscious while driving, loose control
Heart attack or epileptic fit while driving, loose control
Omission
Failing to act
General rule on omissions
You are not responsible for a failure to act
Exception: if they have a duty to act
Different types of duties in omission
Contractual Relationship Assuming responsibility voluntarily Public office Creating a dangerous situation
Contractual
Duty while on the job
R v Pittwood (1902)
Failed to shut gate at railway, someone was run over by a train
Relationship
A relation usually parent and child
R v Gibbins and proctor (1918)
Failed to feed their child and the child died. Duty as guardians to feed the child
Assuming responsibility voluntarily
Voluntarily taking responsibility for someone
R v Stone and Dobinson (1977)
Chose to take care of her sister, failed to take care of her and she died
Public office
A duty from your job (on or off duty)
R v Dytham (1979)
Off the job police officer saw a fight break out and a man died, he didn’t intervene or summon help
Creating a dangerous situation
Causing risk for crime and not preventing it
R v Miller (1983)
Man dropped a lot cigarette, saw it caught fire and left it. Did not attempt to put out the fire or summon help. Caused by his action
Two types of causation (actus reus)
Factual causation
Legal causation
Factual causation- write down the name of the test
But for(without).. D’s conduct… would ____ have happened?
Case to compare to factual causation?
R V Pagett D kidnapped pregnant girlfriend(V). D used V as human shield against police, shot police then police shot V. But for(without) D using V as a human shield, she would not have died. Events would not have happened without Ds causation- passed test- guilty (more likely)
How factual causation test works- process
But for (without D’s actions).. -> would not have happened -> passed test -> guilty
But for (without D’s actions)..-> would have still happened -> failed test -> not guilty (not factual cause)
Legal causation
Operative and substantial test
Was D’s conduct a significant cause of the consequence to V.
Legal causation case
R v Smith
D stabbed V with bayonet and punctured V’s lung. Medics performed CPR on V which tore open the lung and he died.
Legal causation: intervening acts
Unbroken chain of events is needed from D’s conduct to the consequence. = chain of causation
To break the chain the intervening act must be
- unreasonable and unforseeable
3 types of intervening acts
- act of a third party
- act of the victim
- acts of God(natural)
Act of a third party case
R v Pagett
Police were a third party, however them shooting back is foreseeable and reasonable, therefore it doesn’t break the chain and D is still guilty
Medical treatment to be an intervention
As well as the treatment being unreasonable and unforseeable- it must also be palpably wrong
Case for medical intervention
R v Jordan
D shot V in stomach. V had almost recovered when hospital gave V antibiotics. V had allergic reaction and there was a note saying not to give them antibiotics. Another doctor gave V more antibiotics. V went into cardiac arrest and they pumped 6X more fluid than any human should have and they died.
Wasn’t reasonable, was unforeseeable and palpably wrong- this breaks chain of causation from D
