2. GENERAL ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Actus reus meaning

The guilty act + physical part of an offence

What makes an offence

Actually rea + men’s rea =criminal liability

Mens rea meaning

Conduct crime meaning

The actus rea is enough to be liable of a criminal act

the actus reus is the defendant’s behaviour itself, not the result

Causation doesn’t have ti be proven (factual/legal)

Ex: drink driving

What is consequences crimes

the actus reus requires proof that the defendant’s conduct caused a specific result.

• defendant’s act must cause a prohibited result.

Murder

Criminal damage

defendant’s act must cause a prohibited result.

Considers causation

What is a voluntary act

D has full control over body movement = chosen to act

Hill v baxter:

• A person is not guilty if their act was completely involuntary.

Involuntary act meaning

D's bodily movement wasn’t controlled by conscious decision = no actus reus

Leicester v Pearson

• Where the defendant’s act is involuntary, there is no actus reus.

Omission meaning

Failure to act when you have a legal duty of care to do so

When can omissions create liability

A) Duty from statute

• Parliament sets out who has a duty of care owed to another

(Road traffic act)

B) Duty from contract

• Legally enforceable agreement

R v Pitwood

C) Duty from relationship

• Family (children - parent)

R v Givson + proctor

D) Duty voluntarily accepted

• defendant voluntarily takes responsibility for someone

R v stone + Robson

E) Duty from creating a dangerous situation

• Duty to prevent harm

R v Miller

F) Professional Duty

R v Dytham

• Occupation requires d to act

List the causation + meanings

1. Factual causation : but for test

But for the Ds actions would V suffered harm

R v White

2. Legal causation

D's act must be an defendant’s act must be an operating and substantial cause of the result. and substantial cause of the result.

• Operating: D’s conduct must still be contributing to the result at the time it occurs. (An active cause) R v Smith

• Substantial: D’s conduct must be more than minimal or trivial; it does not have to be the only or main cause. R v Pagett

Thin skull rule explain

TSR: D must take victim as they find them

• (including mental, religious + physical characteristics )

If D has characteristic/condition that makes them more susceptible to harm: D is still liable

• No break in the chain if causation

R v Blaue

What is breaking the chain of causation

Link between Ds actions + result

Something new happened after Ds actions =real cause of result

Broken by new interviewing act

(Novis actus interveniens)

D can still be liable if they contributed as well as other things

Medical treatment + chain of causation

Medical treatment

• Doesnt break chain

• only if :so independent and potentially that ds og act is insignificant t

• R v Smith : even if treatment is bad D is still liable

• R v Jordan: chain broken if treatment is obviously wrong ! = og injury is not longer operating cause

• R v Cheshire: chain is broken

List what breaks chain of causation

1. Rarely medical treatment

2. Victims own act

3. Third party acts

(Thin skull rule doesn’t break)

Victims own act and chain of causation

V reacting to Ds conduct, causing/worsening harm

Was V reaction reasonably foreseeable

✅️= not broken (liable) R v Roberts

❌️= broken (not liable) R v Williams + Davis

Williams + davis":

Vs action was unreasonable / disproportionate

Third party acts and chain of causation

Third party: someone other than D and V

Is 3rd party’s act independent enough to break chain

Break chain if act was:

• Free

• deliberate

• Informed

=Independent choice woth knowledge of whst they were doing