Lesson Plan 4: Actus Reus

Question 1

What are the 2 key elements to a criminal offence?

Answer 1

1. Actus Reus –> must have a sufficiently guilty act
2. Mens Rea –> must have a sufficiently guilty mind

Question 2

Actus Reus?

Answer 2

Guilty Act –> the physical doing of the crime (touching, hitting)

Question 3

Elements of Actus Reus?

Answer 3

1. Physical doing of the crime
2. Act or omission prohibited by legislation
3. Must be voluntary
4. Must overlap at least temporarily with Mens REa
5. Act element of an offence (what, when, where)
6. Can be determined for offences by reading statutory provisions

Question 4

Acts of Actus Reus?

Answer 4

Example: touching someone without their consent is Actus Reus for sexual assault

Question 5

Omissions of Actus Reus?

Answer 5

Only appy when there’s a legal duty to perform something required by law.

Example: failing to prove necessities of life for a child

Question 6

Example of the overlap between Actus Reus & Mens Rea?

Answer 6

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

Question 7

How does criminal law and torts differ?

Answer 7

Criminal –> intention to do something sets them apart
Tort –> ie: hitting another car by accident

Question 8

R v Dunlop Ratio?

Answer 8

Mere presence at the scene of a crime isn’t sufficient grounds for culpability.

Question 9

R v Moore Ratio?

Answer 9

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.

Question 10

2 Types of Involuntariness of Actus Reus?

Answer 10

A culpable act MUST be voluntary.

1. Physiological Involuntariness
2. Moral Involuntariness

Question 11

What is Physiological Involuntariness?

Answer 11

Example: clutching someone else while having a heart attack, etc.

Question 12

What is Moral Involuntariness?

Answer 12

Example: Accused has a gun to head and told to detonate a bomb or be shot.
- still act of doing it, but MORALLY INVOLUNTARY

Question 13

Voluntariness?

Answer 13

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.

Question 14

Ratio from R v Daviault (Voluntariness)?

Answer 14

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

Question 15

Ratio from R v Wolfe (Voluntariness)?

Answer 15

There must be at least some cognition that makes the criminal act voluntary. A pure reflex isn’t voluntary.

Question 16

2 ways the De Minimus Non Curat Lex principle is addressed?

Answer 16

1. The law doesn’t concern itself with matters of merely trifling or trivial nature.
2. The threshold of contribution required for guilt in causation cases.

Question 17

What does the law not concerning itself with trifling matters mean?

Answer 17

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).

Question 18

What differentiates an offence from being trifling?

Answer 18

1. must be public interest to prosecute
2. must be reasonable grounds for conviction

Question 19

What does the threshold of contribution required for guilt in causation cases mean? (De Minimus)

Answer 19

Does the lawful act contribute beyond the De Minimus range?

Question 20

Causation (Separate from De Minimus, component of AR)

Answer 20

Does the unlawful act contribute beyond the De Minimus range toward the result of harm/injury?

Question 21

From which case does the Causation Test come from?

Answer 21

Smithers v the Queen, R v Nette

Question 22

How bears the burden of proof for causation?

Answer 22

The Crown must prove BARD causation under the AR requirement.

Question 23

Thin Skull Rule?

Answer 23

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.

Question 24

Factual Causation?

Answer 24

how the victim came to the end result in a medical/physical sense –> but for the actions of the accused, would this have happened?

Question 25

Legal Causation?

Answer 25

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.

Question 26

Flowchart for Causation Test?

Answer 26

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

Question 27

Ratio from R v Nette?

Answer 27

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).

Question 28

What are the two steps/subissues pertaining to Legal Causation?

Answer 28

1. Reasonable Foreseeability
2. Intervening Independent Actor

Question 29

Reasonable Foreseeability?

Answer 29

Was the risk of harm reasonably foreseeable? Did the harm flow naturally from the accused’s actions?

Question 30

Intervening Independent Actor?

Answer 30

An intervening act CAN absolve the original wrongdoer, but it must be an overwhelming act out of left field that overturns the wrongdoing.

Question 31

What provisions in the Criminal Code do you look to before moving on to the Smithers Test?

Answer 31

S.224
S.225
S.226

Question 32

What is the difference between Smithers v The Queen and R v Nette?

Answer 32

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”.