1 Actus reus - Definition & Causation

What is the definition of Actus Reus?

Actus reus is the 'physical element of a crime,' encompassing everything but the mental element.

What must be proven for an act to qualify as Actus Reus?

That the act must be present and voluntary.

What is the significance of R v Deller (1952)?

Conviction was quashed because the defendant’s guilty mind alone was insufficient to constitute a crime.

What are strict liability crimes?

Crimes that require no mens rea (mental element) for some part of the actus reus.

What was the key takeaway from Hill v Baxter (1958)?

Actus reus must be voluntary; if someone is in an automatous state, they may not be liable.

What does the case of Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent (1983) illustrate about state of affairs?

On rare occasions, a state of affairs can amount to actus reus.

In R v White (1910), why was the defendant not the factual cause?

Because 'but for' his actions, his mother would still have died.

What is the significance of the 'thin skull rule'?

Defendants must take their victims as they find them, including any vulnerabilities.

What is meant by causation in criminal law?

Causation refers to the necessity of proving that the defendant caused the outcome specified in the crime.

What happens if a chain of causation is broken?

If there's a 'novus actus interveniens' (new intervening act), the defendant may avoid liability.

What criteria must be met for an action to be considered the legal cause of an injury?

The consequence must be something that could reasonably be foreseen as a consequence of the act.

What does R v Hughes (2013) emphasize regarding a defendant's contribution to the outcome?

The defendant’s contribution must be more than de minimis, meaning it must be more than a minimal cause.

In cases of medical treatment, when does it break the chain of causation?

It only breaks the chain if the treatment is so independent and potent that it renders the defendant's actions insignificant.

Why might a defendant avoid liability for murder, even if causation is established?

If the defendant foresees a risk of harm but not death or GBH, they may lack the mens rea necessary for murder.

What is the first limb of causation in assessing criminal liability?

Is the defendant the factual cause? This is answered with 'but for' the defendant’s actions, would the result have happened?

What does R v Roberts (1971) establish about the victim’s actions?

The victim's actions do not prevent the defendant from being the legal cause if they are reasonably foreseeable.

Why is R v Cheshire (1991) significant in causation discussions?

It establishes that you do not have to be the sole cause; just a significant cause for liability.

What is 'mens rea'?

Mens rea refers to the mental state or guilty mind required to constitute a crime.

In R v Marjoram (1999), what was key to proving causation?

Determining both actual and legal cause to ascertain if the defendant caused the victim's injury.