Principles of criminal liability: Actus Reus - CRIMINAL LAW (1) Flashcards
what does actus reus mean
guilty act
The actus reus of an offence can be:
- An act
- A failure to act
- A ‘state of affairs’
What is an omission
A failure to act when D had a duty to act
What is the general rule
cannot be liable for failing to act unless D owed V a legal duty of care
what are the 6 main duty of care situations
1) statutory duty
2) contractual duty
3) duty because of a relationship
4) voluntary duty
5) duty through ones official position
6) duty because D set in motion a dangerous chain of events
what is statutory duty
an act of parliament can create a duty to act, there will be a liability for an omission
what is the case example for statutory duty and the legal principle
S.6 Road Traffic Act
legal principle= makes it a legal duty to provide breath specimen when requested by a police officer. Failure to do so is an omission
what is a contractional duty
if a contact specifies that you must perform certain duties, a failure to carry out these duties can be an omission
what is the case for a contractual duty and the legal principle
Pittwood
legal principle= the D was liable for the death as he had a contractual duty to close the gate
what is a duty because of a relationship
usually a parent-child relationship as a parent has a duty to care for their young children. A duty can also exist the opposite way around where a grown-up child is caring for an elderly parent.
what is the case for a duty because of a relationship and the legal principle
Gibbons and Proctor
legal principle= the D was liable for an omission because parents have a duty of care of the child
what is a duty which has been taken voluntarily
a duty is created when the D willingly accepts the responsiblity for someone who needs care. By later failing to provide such care, the D will be guilty of an omission
what is the case for a duty which has been taken voluntarily and the legal principle
Stone and Dobinson
legal principle= they were guilty through an omission as they voluntarily assumed a duty of care over the victim
what is a duty through ones official position
this is where someone such as a police officer fails to act when they have a duty to intervene by the very nature of their position
rarely used
what is the case for a duty through ones offical position and the legal principle
Dytham
legal principle= the offence of misconduct was committed through omission here
(police officer stood back as man was being beaten to death)
what is a duty because the defendant set in motion a chain of events
where the D creates a dangerous situation and then fails to take responsible steps to rectify the situation. Will be guilty for failing to take appropriate action
what is the case for a duty because the D set in motion a chain of events and the legal principle
Miller
legal principle= the D was guilty of an omission as he created a dangerous situation and then failed to take action
what must be prosecution prove
that the D is the ultimate cause of the eventual outcome
what may the chain of causation be broken by and what does this mean for the D
intervening acts
they break the chain of causation and means D is no longer the ultimate cause of the outcome and so is not guilty
what is causation governed by
the common law (cases)
there is no statutory guidence on causation.
the prosecution must prove that the D conduct was:
- the factual cause
- the legal cause
- there was no intervening acts
what is the factual cause
the D can only be found guility of an offence if the consequence would not have happned ‘but for’ the defendanrts conduct
what is the test for the factual cause
but for test
what is the case and principle for the factual cause
pagett
legal principle= Factual cause was defined in Pagett as ‘but for’ the actions of the D, the V wouldn’t have died
The D is the factual cause of the V death
girlfriend used as a human shield, police shot and accidentally kit girlfriend and she died.
what is the legal cause
more than a minimal cause of the consequence.
what is the case and principle for legal cause
Kimsey
principle= KImsey stated that the test for legal causation is, was the Ds conduct ‘more than a minimal cause’ of the consequence
what is the test for legal cause
must be more than a minimal cause of the eventual outcome
what is the thin skull rule
if the victim has something unusual about them which makes the injury more serious than the D anticipated, the D is still liable for the more serious injury caused.
Thin skull rule comes under legal causation
what is the case and principle for the thin skull rule
Blaue
principle= the D must’ take the victim as he finds him’
what is the chain of causation
must be a direct link from the D conduct to the eventual outcome
what may the chain of causation be broken by
(4 things)
- medical treatment
- actions of a third party
- victims own act
- victims self neglect
to break the chain of causation the intervening acts must be..
sufficiently independent of the defendants act and sufficiently serious in order to break the chain of causation and result in no liability on the defendants behalf
what is the case and principle for medical treatment
Jordan
legal principle= medical mistreatment will only be an intervening act which breaks the chain of causation if it is ‘palpably wrong’ (really serious)
what is the case and principle for a third party
Rafferty
legal principle= rafferty shows that a third party (who is not a medical professional) might break the chain of causation if they intend to make the situation worse
what is the case and principle for the victims own actions
Roberts
legal principle= roberts illustates that if the defendant causes the victim to react in a foreseable way, then any injury to the victim will be considered to have been caused by the defendant
what test is used for the victims own actions
the daftness test
what is the case and principle for the victims own self neglect
Dear
legal principle= shows that even where the victims own negligent behaviour ( e.g failure to get medical assistance after the defendants act) has contributed to the eventual consequence, the chain of causation will still rarely be broken.
The wounds were still the cause of the death even if the V re-opened them. D was still convicted.
