Lesson Plan 4: Actus Reus Flashcards
What are the 2 key elements to a criminal offence?
- Actus Reus –> must have a sufficiently guilty act
- Mens Rea –> must have a sufficiently guilty mind
Actus Reus?
Guilty Act –> the physical doing of the crime (touching, hitting)
Elements of Actus Reus?
- Physical doing of the crime
- Act or omission prohibited by legislation
- Must be voluntary
- Must overlap at least temporarily with Mens REa
- Act element of an offence (what, when, where)
- Can be determined for offences by reading statutory provisions
Acts of Actus Reus?
Example: touching someone without their consent is Actus Reus for sexual assault
Omissions of Actus Reus?
Only appy when there’s a legal duty to perform something required by law.
Example: failing to prove necessities of life for a child
Example of the overlap between Actus Reus & Mens Rea?
Shoplifting liquor:
Mens Rea –> going into the store with the intention to steal
Actus Reus –> when you take the liquor off the shelf and begin to move it to steal
How does criminal law and torts differ?
Criminal –> intention to do something sets them apart
Tort –> ie: hitting another car by accident
R v Dunlop Ratio?
Mere presence at the scene of a crime isn’t sufficient grounds for culpability.
R v Moore Ratio?
When a person is seen by an officer committing an offence, they have a duty to provide their identification. Acting suspiciously is no grounds to warrant a police officer to take your information.
2 Types of Involuntariness of Actus Reus?
A culpable act MUST be voluntary.
- Physiological Involuntariness
- Moral Involuntariness
What is Physiological Involuntariness?
Example: clutching someone else while having a heart attack, etc.
What is Moral Involuntariness?
Example: Accused has a gun to head and told to detonate a bomb or be shot.
- still act of doing it, but MORALLY INVOLUNTARY
Voluntariness?
MR doesn’t cover all mental aspects of a crime –> AR also has mental component. AR must be product of a conscious mind and must be VOLUNTARY.
Ratio from R v Daviault (Voluntariness)?
If it’s established that an accused is at a level of automation because of intoxication, the voluntariness mental aspect of AR is rebutted. –> THIS WAS LATER RESTRICTED BY AMENDMENT OF CC SECTION
Ratio from R v Wolfe (Voluntariness)?
There must be at least some cognition that makes the criminal act voluntary. A pure reflex isn’t voluntary.
2 ways the De Minimus Non Curat Lex principle is addressed?
- The law doesn’t concern itself with matters of merely trifling or trivial nature.
- The threshold of contribution required for guilt in causation cases.
What does the law not concerning itself with trifling matters mean?
An offence may have technically been committed, but it’s not worthy of prosecution (sugar packets). Conduct must be morally serious before falling within the scrutiny of criminal law (Kubassek).
What differentiates an offence from being trifling?
- must be public interest to prosecute
- must be reasonable grounds for conviction
What does the threshold of contribution required for guilt in causation cases mean? (De Minimus)
Does the lawful act contribute beyond the De Minimus range?
Causation (Separate from De Minimus, component of AR)
Does the unlawful act contribute beyond the De Minimus range toward the result of harm/injury?
From which case does the Causation Test come from?
Smithers v the Queen, R v Nette
How bears the burden of proof for causation?
The Crown must prove BARD causation under the AR requirement.
Thin Skull Rule?
You take your victim as you find them. If you happen to hurt someone and they die because of a rare/unforeseen circumstance, you’re still liable.
Factual Causation?
how the victim came to the end result in a medical/physical sense –> but for the actions of the accused, would this have happened?
Legal Causation?
Should the accused be held responsible in law? If this isn’t established, then it warrants an acquittal. Depends on the wording of the CC provision.
Flowchart for Causation Test?
Unlawful act –> unlawful act needs to be factual cause of death –> unlawful act needs to be legal cause of death –> must at least be beyond De Minimus
Ratio from R v Nette?
Factual causation is about how the victim came to their death. Legal causation is concerned with if the accused SHOULD be held responsible for the death (grey area).
What are the two steps/subissues pertaining to Legal Causation?
- Reasonable Foreseeability
- Intervening Independent Actor
Reasonable Foreseeability?
Was the risk of harm reasonably foreseeable? Did the harm flow naturally from the accused’s actions?
Intervening Independent Actor?
An intervening act CAN absolve the original wrongdoer, but it must be an overwhelming act out of left field that overturns the wrongdoing.
What provisions in the Criminal Code do you look to before moving on to the Smithers Test?
S.224
S.225
S.226
What is the difference between Smithers v The Queen and R v Nette?
Smithers established the Causation Test, asking if the actions of the accused contributed beyond the De Minimus range to the outcome (ie more trivial). Nette built on Smithers by saying that the actions of the accused must be “a significant contributing cause of death”.
