Actus Reus Tests

Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent [1983]

Facts: The defendant was found drunk in a hospital. Police officers removed him from the hospital and placed him on the highway, where he was arrested for being drunk on a highway.

Ratio: The actus reus of an offence may consist of being in a prohibited state or situation, rather than performing a positive voluntary act.

Application: Use when discussing state-of-affairs offences and whether the prosecution must prove a voluntary act. It does not establish that every involuntary act can constitute criminal liability.

R v White [1910] 2 KB 124

Facts: The defendant put poison into his mother's drink intending to kill her. However, she died from a heart attack before the poison could take effect.

Ratio: Factual causation is assessed using the 'but for' test: but for the defendant's conduct, would the consequence have occurred? The defendant's act did not cause his mother's death.

Application: Use where the prosecution must establish that the defendant's conduct made a difference to the outcome. If the result would have occurred anyway, factual causation is not established, although the defendant may be liable for an attempt.

R v Kimsey [1996] Crim LR 35

Facts: The defendant was involved in a high-speed car chase with another driver. The vehicles collided and the other driver died.

Ratio: The defendant's conduct need not be the sole or principal cause of death; it is sufficient if it contributed more than minimally to the result.

Application: Use when there are multiple contributing causes. Ask whether the defendant's conduct was more than a slight or trifling contribution.

R v Cato [1976] 1 WLR 110

Facts: The defendant injected the victim with heroin on several occasions during an evening. The victim subsequently died from the effects of the drug.

Ratio: An act can be a legal cause of death if it contributes significantly and is more than de minimis; it need not be the only or principal cause. The injection also constituted administration of a noxious thing under s.23 OAPA 1861.

Application: Use for the more-than-minimal contribution principle and where D directly administers drugs to V. Distinguish cases where V freely self-administers drugs supplied by D.

R v Dalloway (1847) 2 Cox CC 273

Facts: The defendant drove a horse and cart without holding the reins. A child ran in front of the cart and was killed. Evidence showed that even if D had been holding the reins, he would not have been able to stop the cart in time.

Ratio: The prosecution must prove that the defendant's breach actually caused the prohibited result. The failure to hold the reins did not cause the death.

Application: Use where D has acted negligently or unlawfully, but the prosecution cannot establish that the conduct made a difference to the outcome. A breach alone is insufficient without causation.

R v Hughes [2013] UKSC 56

Facts: The defendant was driving while disqualified and without insurance. Another driver's dangerous driving caused a collision in which the defendant died. The prosecution charged the defendant under the offence of causing death by driving while unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured.

Ratio: For the offence under s.3ZB Road Traffic Act 1988, the defendant's driving must be a cause of death; merely being present on the road while committing the licensing offence is insufficient.

Application: Use to show that the prosecution must connect the defendant's driving to the death, not merely prove that D committed a separate driving offence. Causation is context-specific and depends on the wording of the offence.

R v Hennigan [1971] 3 All ER 133

Facts: The defendant drove at excessive speed and collided with a car emerging from a side road. The other driver was also at fault, but two passengers in her car died.

Ratio: The defendant need not be the sole, main or substantial cause of death. It is sufficient that the defendant's conduct was a cause that was more than de minimis.

Application: Use where another person was also negligent or contributed to the accident. D cannot avoid liability merely because another person's conduct was also a cause. The defendant's contribution must still be more than trivial.

R v Benge (1865) 4 F & F 504

Facts: A railway worker removed a rail while repairs were being carried out. Another worker responsible for warning an approaching train failed to give the warning, and a train derailed, causing deaths.

Ratio: The existence of another person's negligence does not automatically relieve D of liability where D's own conduct remains a cause of the result.

Application: Use where multiple people contribute to an accident. The prosecution does not have to prove that D was the only person at fault, provided D's conduct remains a legally effective cause.