actus reus

what is actus reus

• this is the physical act of a crime it is in some cases something the defendant does but actus reus can be a failure to do something in certain cases

conduct and consequence crimes

conduct crime is where the accused conducts forms the offence and the is no required consequence from that conduct for example

• drink driving is a criminal offence merely driving with excess alcohol in your system is an offence no consequence such as causing an accident is required

for a consequence crime, the consequence element must happen for the offence to be committed for example

• in the offence of ABH there must be an actual assault but there must also be the consequence of actual bodily harm

a consequence requires proof that the defendants actus reus the assault caused the prohibited consequence

voluntary act

the act or omission must be voluntary on the part of the defendant if the defendant has no control over their actions then they cannot have fulfilled actus Reus this is explained in the case of Hill v Baxter

• the defendant ignored a road sign that said halt this caused him to crash he claimed to not remember anything from the time of the crash and said he was an automaton

• he was convicted cause there was no evidence of this but the court gave examples where a driver of a vehicle could not be said to be doing the act voluntarily such as losing control while being stung by a swarm of bees or being struck on the head by a rock

state of affairs

there are some instances in which the defendant has been convicted even though the act was not desired by the defendant but occurred through actions against his will as seen in r v larsonneur

• defendant ordered to leave the UK she went to Ireland the Irish police deported her to the UK she did not wish to go voluntarily and made every effort not to go

• when she landed in the uk she was arrested immediately as she was an illegal immigrant she was convicted of that offence it did not matter she was put there but irish police against her will

omissions

the normal principle is that the actus reus is a positive act therefore an omission, a failure to act, cannot make a person guilty of an offence there is no requirement on a person to aid someone in danger. However there are situations in law where omissions can lead to criminal liability

• a contractual duty

• a duty exists due to the relationship between the V and accused

• a duty to the V was taken on voluntarily by the accused

• a duty to act arises as a consequence of the accused official position

• a duty arises because the defendant has set in motion a chain of events

• and an act of parliament

an act of parliement

many of these stat offences concern matters such as preventing pollution and public safety for example building standards or failing to take a breath test as a driver

• these offences often require proof of only an actus reus to establish guilt these offences are known as strict liability

a contractual duty

r v pittwood

• a railway crossing keeper admitted to shut the gates so that a person crossing the train line was struck and killed by a train the keeper was guilty of man slaughterby virtue of contractual duty because of his failure to close the gate

a duty exists due to relationship

this for example could be between a parent and a child this was shown in Gibbins and proctor

• the child’s father and his mistress failed to feed the child so it died of starvation they had a duty to feed the child as a result of the relationship of parent to child so had a duty to act their omission to act formed the actus reus of the offence and they were guilty of murder

duty toward the victim was taken on voluntarily

a duty which has been taken on voluntarily can give rise to actus reus where duty is not carried out this can be seen in r v evans

• the V was a 16 yr old heroin addict who lived with her mother and older sister the half sister bought some heroin and gave it to the V who injected it, it became obvious she overdosed but no one helped her they put her to bed and hoped she recovered, she died

• the mother owed duty of care to the daughter. the half sister created the situation which she knew or ought reasonably to have known was life threatening and therefore she owed duty

a duty to the victim from an official position

the official position can give rise to a duty to act and failure to act can become actus reus of a crime this is unlike in some countries whose law requires every person to act in situations where another is in danger or distress an example is r v dytham

• dytham a police officer witnessed a violent attack on the victim but took no steps to intervene or summon help instead he drove away from the scene the officer was found guilty of wilfully and without reasonable excuse neglecting to perform his duty

a duty toward the victim arises because the D set in motion a series of events

this concept of owing a duty and being liable through omission was created in the case of miller

• the defendant a squatter fell asleep in an empty house his lit cigarette fell onto his mattress and a fire started when he realised this he left the room and went to sleep in a different room he did not try to put out the fire or summon help he was guilty of arson under the criminal damage act section one