Criminal Liability - overview

What is actus reus in criminal liability?

The guilty act or external element of a criminal offence.

What may form the actus reus of an offence?

The defendant’s action, a prohibited consequence, surrounding circumstances or a failure to act.

What are the main types of actus reus?

Circumstance offences, conduct offences, result offences and omissions where a legal duty to act exists.

What is a circumstance offence?

An offence requiring particular facts or circumstances to exist when the defendant acts.

What matters commonly form circumstance elements of offences?

Ownership, age, consent and legal status.

What circumstance element must be proved for theft under section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968?

The property must belong to someone other than the defendant.

What is a conduct offence?

An offence focused on the defendant’s prohibited act rather than any resulting consequence.

Must a prohibited result be proved for a conduct offence?

No. Proof of the prohibited conduct is sufficient.

What indicates that a statutory offence is likely to be a conduct offence?

The statute criminalises the act itself without requiring a specified result.

What is the actus reus of fraud by false representation under section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006?

Making a false representation.

Must a victim suffer loss for the actus reus of fraud by false representation to be complete?

No. The offence focuses on making the false representation.

What is the actus reus of blackmail under section 21 of the Theft Act 1968?

Making a demand with menaces.

Must the victim comply with a demand for the actus reus of blackmail to be complete?

No.

What conduct forms part of the actus reus of theft under section 1 of the Theft Act 1968?

Appropriation of property.

Must the victim already have been deprived of the property for theft’s actus reus to be complete?

No. Appropriation is sufficient.

What is a result offence?

An offence requiring the defendant’s act or omission to cause a specified prohibited result.

What must the prosecution prove for a result offence?

Both factual and legal causation.

What criminal offences are examples of result crimes?

Murder, manslaughter, criminal damage, section 18 and section 20 grievous bodily harm, section 47 actual bodily harm, and robbery.

What is factual causation?

The question whether the defendant’s act or omission actually caused the prohibited result.

What is the test for factual causation?

But for the defendant’s act or omission, would the result have occurred in the way that it did?

What did R v White establish about factual causation?

R v White held that the defendant did not cause his mother’s death because she died of a heart attack before the poison he administered took effect.

Why was factual causation absent in R v White?

The victim would have died in the same way even without the defendant’s poisoning.

Of what offence was the defendant guilty in R v White?

Attempted murder rather than murder.

What did R v Dyson establish about accelerating death?

R v Dyson established that an act which accelerates death can be a factual cause even where the victim was already likely to die.

What happened in R v Dyson?

A child suffering from meningitis was pushed down stairs and died.

Why could the defendant be a factual cause of death in R v Dyson?

The assault accelerated the child’s death.

What is legal causation?

The question whether the defendant should legally be held responsible for the prohibited result.

What is the core test for legal causation?

The defendant’s conduct must be an operating and substantial cause of the result.

Which case states that the defendant must be an operating and substantial cause?

R v Pagett.

Must the defendant’s act be the sole or principal cause of the result?

No. It need only be more than minimal and remain an operating and substantial cause.

What does the de minimis principle require in legal causation?

The defendant’s contribution must be more than minimal.

Which case confirms that the defendant’s act need only be more than de minimis?

R v Hughes.

Must the prohibited result arise from the blameworthy aspect of the defendant’s conduct?

Yes. The result must be caused by the culpable element of the defendant’s behaviour.

What did R v Dalloway establish about blameworthy conduct and causation?

R v Dalloway held that a defendant is not liable where the death was not caused by the blameworthy aspect of their conduct.

What happened in R v Dalloway?

The defendant drove a horse and cart without holding the reins, but a child’s death was shown to have been unavoidable even if the reins had been held.

Why was the defendant not liable in R v Dalloway?

The death was not caused by the culpable failure to hold the reins.

Can several people’s conduct contribute legally to the same result?

Yes. The defendant need not be the only cause.

What did R v Benge establish about multiple causes?

R v Benge held that the defendant remained liable where his negligence substantially contributed to a fatal railway crash despite negligence by others.

What happened in R v Benge?

The defendant misjudged the timing when ordering railway tracks to be removed, while the signalman and train driver were also negligent.

Why did the negligence of others not absolve the defendant in R v Benge?

His own negligence remained a substantial cause of the deaths.

What is a novus actus interveniens?

A new intervening act that breaks the chain of causation between the defendant’s conduct and the prohibited result.

When may medical negligence break the chain of causation?

Only where it is so overwhelming that the defendant’s original act becomes merely part of the history.

How willing are courts to treat medical negligence as breaking the chain of causation?

They are generally very reluctant because the threshold is extremely high.

What did R v Smith establish about negligent medical treatment?

R v Smith held that the original stabbing remained an operating and substantial cause despite poor treatment and the victim being dropped.

What happened in R v Smith?

A soldier was stabbed, dropped while being transported and then received harmful medical treatment before dying.

Why was the chain of causation not broken in R v Smith?

The original wound was still an operating and substantial cause of death.

What did R v Cheshire establish about medical negligence?

R v Cheshire held that negligent treatment did not break the chain where the defendant’s shooting remained a significant cause of death.

What happened in R v Cheshire?

The victim was shot and later died from a blocked tracheotomy tube after negligent medical treatment.

Did it matter in R v Cheshire that the original wounds had healed by the time of death?

No. The medical negligence was not sufficiently independent and overwhelming to break the chain.

When will a third party’s act generally break the chain of causation?

Where it is free, deliberate and informed.

What did R v Pagett establish about third-party acts?

R v Pagett held that reasonable defensive action by police did not break the chain of causation.

What happened in R v Pagett?

The defendant used his pregnant girlfriend as a shield while shooting at police, who returned fire and killed her.

Why did the police shooting not break the chain in R v Pagett?

The police acted reasonably in self-defence and their response was not a free and independent intervention.

What are fright-and-flight cases?

Cases in which a victim is injured or killed while reacting to or escaping from the defendant’s conduct.

What test applies to a victim’s reaction in fright-and-flight cases?

The response must be reasonably foreseeable and not so unreasonable or “daft” as to break the chain.

What did R v Roberts establish about a victim’s escape response?

R v Roberts held that the defendant caused the victim’s injuries when she jumped from his car to escape his sexual advances.

Why did the victim’s act not break the chain in R v Roberts?

Jumping from the car was a reasonably foreseeable response to the defendant’s conduct.

What did R v Williams and Davies establish about fright-and-flight causation?

R v Williams and Davies confirmed that the victim’s response must be proportionate and assessed in light of their characteristics and possible panic.

What happened in R v Williams and Davies?

A hitchhiker jumped from a moving car during a robbery and died.

Why was the conviction quashed in R v Williams and Davies?

The jury had been misdirected on whether the victim’s response was sufficiently proportionate and foreseeable.

Does a victim’s refusal of medical treatment generally break the chain of causation?

No.

What did R v Blaue establish about refusal of medical treatment?

R v Blaue held that a victim’s refusal of a blood transfusion for religious reasons did not break the chain of causation.

What happened in R v Blaue?

A Jehovah’s Witness refused a blood transfusion after being stabbed and died.

Why was the defendant liable in R v Blaue?

The defendant had to take the victim as found, including her religious beliefs.

What did R v Holland establish about refusing treatment?

R v Holland held that a victim’s refusal to have an injured finger amputated did not break the chain when the victim later died of tetanus.

What did R v Dear establish about reopening wounds?

R v Dear held that the defendant remained liable where the injuries he inflicted continued to be an operating and significant cause of death.

What happened in R v Dear?

The victim’s wounds reopened, either naturally or intentionally, and caused death.

Why did the possible deliberate reopening of wounds not break the chain in R v Dear?

The original injuries remained an operating and significant cause of death.

Can a victim’s suicide break the chain of causation?

It may, depending on whether the defendant’s conduct remained significant and operating and whether the suicide was reasonably foreseeable.

What test did R v Wallace develop for causation involving suicide?

Ask whether the defendant’s act was a significant and operating cause and whether suicide was reasonably foreseeable as a result of the victim’s injuries.

What happened in R v Wallace?

The victim was paralysed by an acid attack and later underwent euthanasia in Belgium.

Could the jury find causation in R v Wallace?

Yes. The defendant’s attack could remain a significant and operating cause of death.

What did R v Kennedy establish about supplying drugs?

R v Kennedy held that supplying drugs does not cause their administration where the informed adult victim voluntarily injects themselves.

Why did the victim’s injection break the chain in R v Kennedy?

It was a free, voluntary and informed act.

When is a victim’s act unlikely to break the chain of causation?

Where the victim still dies from the original wound or the response was reasonably foreseeable.

When is a victim’s act more likely to break the chain of causation?

Where the original injuries have healed or the victim makes a free, voluntary and informed choice causing the result.

What is the thin-skull rule?

The defendant must take the victim as they find them, including physical and psychological vulnerabilities.

What did R v Hayward establish about the thin-skull rule?

R v Hayward held the defendant liable where his wife died because an unusual thyroid condition made her vulnerable during a chase.

Does the thin-skull rule include a victim’s beliefs?

Yes, as shown by R v Blaue.

When may a natural event break the chain of causation?

Only where it is extraordinary and unforeseeable.

Would the tide normally break the chain where a defendant leaves an unconscious victim on a beach?

No. The incoming tide is foreseeable.

What approach should courts take in novel causation cases?

They should apply common sense.

Which case emphasises common sense in novel causation scenarios?

R v Girdler.

What is criminal liability by omission?

Liability arising where the defendant fails to act despite being under a legal duty and action could have made a causal difference.

What is the general rule concerning omissions in criminal law?

There is no liability for failing to act unless the defendant was under a legal duty.

Which case states the general rule that there is no liability for a mere failure to act?

R v Smith (William).

What must the prosecution prove for criminal liability by omission?

The offence can be committed by omission, the defendant owed a legal duty, breached it, caused the actus reus and possessed any required mens rea.

Can every criminal offence be committed by omission?

No. The offence must be capable of commission through a failure to act.

Can unlawful-act manslaughter be committed by omission?

No. It requires a positive unlawful act.

Which case establishes that unlawful-act manslaughter cannot be committed by omission?

R v Lowe.

What are the main sources of a legal duty to act?

Statute, contract, special relationships, voluntary assumption of responsibility, creation of danger and public office.

Can a statute create a duty to act?

Yes.

What statutory omission offence is contained in section 6(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988?

Failing to provide a breath specimen.

Can a contractual obligation create a criminal-law duty to act?

Yes.

What did R v Pittwood establish about contractual duties?

R v Pittwood held that a railway gatekeeper’s contractual duty to close a crossing gate supported manslaughter liability when his omission caused a death.

Why did the gatekeeper owe a duty to the public in R v Pittwood?

His employment contract required him to protect road users by closing the level-crossing gate.

Could an on-duty lifeguard incur liability for failing to rescue a swimmer?

Yes, potentially for gross negligence manslaughter because of the contractual duty.

Can a special relationship create a legal duty to act?

Yes.

What relationships may create a special duty to act?

Relationships such as parent and child, spouses, and doctor and patient.

What did R v Hood establish about duties between spouses?

R v Hood held that a husband’s failure to obtain medical help for his injured wife could support manslaughter liability.