Criminal Law: Actus Reus and Causation

Flashcards covering the core principles of Actus Reus, including burdens of proof, types of crimes, duties regarding omissions, and the rules of factual and legal causation.

Actus reus

The 'guilty act' or conduct component of an offence, representing the physical elements required to establish criminal liability.

Mens rea

The 'guilty state of mind' of the defendant required for most criminal offences.

Legal burden of proof

The obligation on the prosecution to prove all elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt, including (in most cases) disproving the defence.

Evidential burden

The prosecution's or defendant's duty to provide sufficient evidence for an element of an offence or a defence to make the issue 'live'.

Standard of proof (prosecution)

The level of certainty required for conviction, which is 'beyond reasonable doubt', where the jury or magistrates must be 'sure' of the defendant's guilt.

Standard of proof (defendant)

The level of certainty required when a legal burden falls on the defendant, which is the 'balance of probabilities', meaning it is 'more likely than not'.

Conduct crimes

Offences where the actus reus is the behavior or action itself, such as perjury, regardless of the eventual result.

Result crimes

Offences where the actus reus requires certain consequences to flow from the defendant's conduct, such as murder or criminal damage.

State of affairs crimes

Offences defined by the existence of a specific situation or set of circumstances, such as being in charge of a motor vehicle while unfit through drink or drugs.

Omission

A failure to act; the general rule is that there is no criminal liability for this unless a specific legal duty to act exists.

Duty arising out of contract

A duty to act based on professional obligations, established in R v Pittwood (1902), where a failure to fulfill contractual duties led to liability for manslaughter.

Special relationship duty

A duty to act arising from family ties or a voluntary assumption of care, as seen in R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918) and R v Stone and Dobinson [1977].

Duty from creating a dangerous situation

A duty established in R v Miller [1983] where a person who endangers a victim and becomes aware of it must take reasonable steps to prevent harm.

Factual causation

The 'but for' test; the defendant is the cause if the result would not have occurred without their conduct, as discussed in R v White [1910].

Legal causation

The requirement that the defendant’s conduct must be a 'substantial and operating' cause of the result, contributing significantly to the outcome.

Novus actus interveniens

A Latin term for 'a new and intervening act' that breaks the chain of causation and absolves the defendant of liability.

Eggshell skull rule (Thin skull rule)

The principle from R v Blaue [1975] that the defendant must 'take their victim as they find them', including physical or mental conditions and religious beliefs.

Fright and flight cases

Cases like R v Roberts (1971) where the chain of causation is not broken because the victim's attempt to escape was a foreseeable response to the defendant's conduct.

R v Jordan (1956)

An exceptional case where medical treatment was so 'palpably wrong' and 'grossly negligent' that it broke the chain of causation.

R v Cheshire [1991]

Established that negligent medical treatment only breaks the chain if it is so independent and potent that the defendant's contribution is rendered insignificant.