General Elements of Criminal Liability Flashcards
ACTUS REUS
The criminal act. The actus reus is either:
- CONDUCT: The action itself is criminal. For example drink driving - there need not be any result / damage.
- CONSEQUENCE: Result of conduct is criminal, even if the act was not - causation MUST be established.
- CIRCUMSTANCE: A being offence rather than a doing offence
Actus reus will only exist if the defendants conduct is voluntary.
R V LARSONNEUR
- Actus Reus: Circumstance offence
The actus reus in this case consisted of a non-national who had not been given permission to come to Britain being found in the country.
OMISSIONS AS ACTUS REUS
- Statutory Duty
- Contractual Duty
- Relationship Duty
- Voluntary Duty
- Official Duty
- Duty created due to dangerous situation
ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1998
Under this act, failing to stop and report a traffic act is criminal.
This shows how a statutory (legal) duty means that omitting to report a traffic act is criminal, and t herefore forms the actus reus.
R V PITTWOOD 1902
Railway worker failed to shut gates, and someone was struck and died - they were convicted of manslaughter.
This shows how a contractual duty in the workers job (keep people safe by closing the gate) can lead to an omission forming the actus reus of a crime.
R V GIBBINS AND PROCTOR (1918)
In this case, the defendant and partner singled out a child and starved her to death.
This case shows how a relationship between two groups, (defendants had to care for the child) can mean that an omission forms the actus reus of the crime.
R V STONE AND DOBINSON 1977
Defendants sister, who they had voluntarily agreed to care for, died of malnutrition due to an eating disorder. Charged with manslaughter.
This shows how a voluntary duty (to care for the sister) can lead to an omission and create the actus reus of the crime.
R V DYTHAM 1979
Defendant, police officer, watched someone be kicked to death and did not help.
This case shows how a duty through an official position can lead to an omission which forms the actus reus of a crime.
R V MILLER 1983
Squatter accidentally started a fire, but did not get help and just moved to another room. Guilty of arson.
This case shows how the defendant created a dangerous situation, and that there failure to get help was an omission that formed the actus reus of a crime.
FACTUAL CAUSATION
This is established using the ‘but for’ test - would the victim have been harmed if it wasnt for the defendants actions.
R V PAGETT
Accused shot at the police, they shot back and killed the accused’s girlfriend.
FACTUAL: The police would not have shot but for the shooters actions, and as such, they were found not guilty of murder.
LEGAL: The boyfriend used her as a human shield, so he was an operative and substantial cause of death.
R V WHITE 1910
White added poison to a drink to kill his mother, but she died of a heart attack instead.
White was found not guilty of murder, as his actions did not lead to his mothers death.
LEGAL CAUSATION
As there may be more than one act that contributes to the consequence, the courts consider whether the defendants act was an operative and substantial cause of the consequence.
BREAKING THE CHAIN OF CAUSATION
- THIN SKULL RULE: Take victim as you find them. If the defendant has a peculiarity making the injury more serious, they will still be liable.
- LIFE SUPPORT: Life support machines do not count as a new intervening act.
- MEDICAL TREATMENT: Unlikely to break the chain unless they are extremely independent of the defendants original act.
R V BLAUE 1975
Victim who was stabbed needed blood transfusion, but she refused and dies.
Applying the thin skull rule here, D did not intend to kill, but as the victim had a peculiarity (Jehovah’s Witness) he was liable for her murder.
