Principles of Criminal Law: Actus Reus and Causation

The City Law School - Principles of Criminal Law Lecture 2: Actus Reus and Causation

Introduction

  • Delivered by Professor Peter Hungerford-Welch.
  • Focuses on fundamental principles related to Actus Reus and Causation in criminal law.

Elements of Criminal Offences

  • Two main elements:
    • Actus Reus: The physical element of the crime (act or omission).
    • Mens Rea: The mental element, including intention or recklessness.

Actus Reus and Mens Rea

  • Originates from the Latin phrase: Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea.
    • Translation: "An act is not necessarily a guilty act unless the accused has the necessary state of mind required for that offence."
    • Source: Definition from Oxford Reference.
  • Definitions:
    • Actus Reus: Actions or omissions that constitute a criminal offence.
    • Mens Rea: The mental state required for culpability, including intention or recklessness.
    • Some offences categorized as ‘strict liability’ do not require mens rea.

Types of Actus Reus

  • Three categories:
    • Result crimes: Conduct must cause a specified result.
    • Conduct crimes: The act of conduct itself constitutes the offence, combined with mens rea.
    • Omissions: Failing to act can also lead to liability under certain conditions.

Result Crimes vs. Conduct Crimes

  • Result Crimes: Require that the conduct causes a specific outcome.
    • Example crimes include:
    • Assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
    • Murder (must result in death).
    • Causing criminal damage (must result in damage).
  • Conduct Crimes: The act itself completes the offence combined with mens rea.
    • Examples include:
    • Blackmail: Offence is complete upon demand for money with threats.
    • Fraud by false representation.

Specific Conduct Types

  • Possession offences: Include drugs or weapons.
  • State of affairs offences:
    • Membership of a terrorist organization (e.g., Terrorism Act 2000, s.11).
    • Being found drunk on the highway (e.g., Licensing Act 1872, s.12).

Circumstances in Criminal Liability

  • Certain crimes necessitate particular circumstances for the actus reus to be deemed criminal.
    • Examples:
    • Theft: Requires property belonging to another.
    • Sexual offences: Require sexual activity without consent.

Liability for Omissions

  • All crimes necessitate an actus reus (no such thing as 'thought crime').
  • Typically, most offences require a positive act from the defendant (D).
  • There can be criminal liability for failing to act only when there exists a duty to act:
    • Statutory duty: Legal obligations imposed by statutes.
    • Common law duty: Obligations arising from case law.

Statutory Duties

  • Examples where failing to act can result in liability:
    • Failing to provide a breath specimen (e.g., Road Traffic Act 1988, s.6).
    • Parent failing to ensure that their child attends school (e.g., Education Act 1996, s.444).
    • Commercial organizations failing to prevent bribery (e.g., Bribery Act 2010, s.7).
    • Large organizations failing to prevent fraud (e.g., Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, s.199).

Common Law Duty to Act - Special Relationships

  • Certain relationships entail duties to act:
    • Special relationships:
    • Parent and child: Gibbins (1918) - failure leading to child's death through starvation.
    • Spouses: Hood (2003) - spouse delayed in summoning medical aid, leading to adverse consequences.

Common Law Duty to Act - Public Duties

  • Duties from public positions:
    • Misconduct in public office: Dytham (1979) - a police officer that did not intervene when witnessing an assault.

Common Law Duty to Act - Voluntary Assumption of Care

  • In cases where a person voluntarily assumes care for another:
    • Stone (1977) - inviting a vulnerable individual into their home can impose liability.
    • Instan (1893) - similar duty arising from constructing a danger.

Duty of Care and Legal Questions

  • Case Reference: Evans (2009) - the jury must determine if a duty of care exists based on ordinary principles of negligence.
  • Decision to be made based on law by the judge.

Breaking Down an Offence

  • Prosecution must prove all elements of an offence:
    • Example: Theft consists of:
    • Dishonesty (mens rea).
    • Appropriation (actus reus).
    • Of a thing (circumstance).
    • Belonging to another (circumstance).
    • With intent to permanently deprive the other of it (mens rea).

Case Example: Unlawful Act Manslaughter

  • A defendant sentenced to 3 years for unlawful act manslaughter had her conviction quashed on appeal after serving a year. The court ruled no unlawful act had occurred, emphasizing the importance of breaking an offence into its elements.

Routes to Verdict

  • Referenced source: Crown Court Compendium.
  • Approach mirrors requirements for solving problem questions.

Case Study Example - Wounding with Intent

  • D charged with wounding with intent, alternatively, unlawful wounding.
    • Prosecution's Claim: D struck V with a glass during an argument, causing a serious facial wound.
    • Defendant's Argument: Claimed self-defense, believing V was about to attack him.

Steps to Determine Verdict

  1. Question 1: Did D strike V deliberately?
  2. If No, then Not Guilty on both counts.
    • If Yes, proceed to Question 2.
  3. Question 2: Was D acting in lawful self-defense?
  4. If No, then Not Guilty on both counts.
    • If Yes, proceed to Question 3.
  5. Question 3: Did D intend to cause serious injury?
  6. If No, then Not Guilty on Count 1, proceed to Question 4.
    • If Yes, Guilty on Count 1, do not consider Count 2.
  7. Question 4: Did D realize he might cause some injury?
  8. If No, Not Guilty on Count 2.
    • If Yes, Guilty on Count 2.

Introduction to Causation

  • Examines notable cases:
    • Broughton (2020): D did not seek help for V after providing drugs; medical evidence showed 90% survival chance with care. Legal question of causation arises.
    • Wallace (2018): Question of causation regarding suicidal actions after provocation from D.

Definition of Causation

  • Two primary types:
    • Factual causation: Direct cause from D's actions.
    • Legal causation: Assessmenting if D's conduct was:
    1. Substantial.
    2. Blameworthy.
    3. Operative.

Factual Causation

  • Factual causation assessed with the but for test:
    • Definition: The result would not have occurred but for D’s act (or omission).
    • Example case: White (1910) - D prepared a cyanide drink; victim died of natural causes.

Legal Causation

  • Evaluates who lawfully bears the cause of the result.
  • Involves principles established through case law. Legal causation must ensure:
    1. Substantial influence on outcome.
    2. Blameworthy conduct.
    3. Operative engagement in the act that caused the harm.

Substantial Cause

  • D's act need not be the sole cause of the result:
    • Reference: Hughes (2013) - must contribute in more than a negligible way.
    • Warburton (2006): D can be assessed as having contributed to a result even if their actions were not the only cause, focusing on significant contribution.

Case Study: Broughton

  • Legal judgment focused on medical assistance; a 10% chance of survival weakened causation. Duty lies in proving the likelihood of medical aid saving V in court.

The Eggshell Skull Rule

  • D must take V as found, including any unusual vulnerabilities.
    • Examples:
    • Cox (1908): Victim's heart attack under threat by D.
    • Blaue (1975): Victim refusing treatment due to religious beliefs leading to death.

Blameworthy Conduct

  • E.g., Road Traffic Act 1988: Driving uninsured leading to culpability must derive from some fault in D's driving actions.

Operative Causation

  • Requires the chain of causation to remain intact without being broken.
    • Reference: 'novus actus interveniens' (new or intervening act) can disrupt this chain.
    • Pagett (1983): D’s acts cannot remain as a legal cause if broken by intervening actions.

Breaking the Chain of Causation

  • Occurs through:
    1. Actions of the victim.
    2. Actions of third parties.
    3. Natural events.

Victim's Actions

  • D is not liable if V’s actions following an act of D are unreasonable. Example case:
    • Roberts (1971): V's injury was a reasonable response to D’s actions during an assault.

Assessing Victim's Responses

  • Criterion to determine if V's reaction was expected or absurd based on context:
    • Williams (1992): Focus on rationality of actions taken by V in circumstances.

Voluntary Self-Injection

  • In Kennedy (No.2) (2007): V's voluntary and informed decision to self-inject breaks causation chain.

Rebelo Case Study

  • Legal examination of conditions under which D’s prior actions contributed to V's death amidst drug abuse leading to death.

Manipulation and Deceit

  • Field (2021): Causing V to act unexpectedly through deceit directly contributing to their demise.

Gross Negligence Manslaughter - Bah (2024)

  • D involved in illegal immigration case where unsafe conditions led to fatalities.
    • Concept of shared responsibility, emphasizing the relationship and initial situation created by D must maintain the chain of causation.

Third-Party Actions

  • Generally break the causation chain unless they contribute to the outcome irresponsibly. Example of Pagett (1983) reviewed.

Interventions - Unforeseeable Harm

  • Unforeseeable events from external third-party actions can sever the link of legal responsibility between D and resultant harms.

Medical Intervention

  • Misdiagnosis and wrong treatment are usually foreseeable and do not sever causation unless exceptionally poor treatment emerges as the singular cause of death.

Case Examples on Medical Intervention

  • Smith (1959): Poor treatment did not alleviate D's liability as original injury remained a significant factor to death.
  • Cheshire (1991): Negligent treatment must be independently potent to sever causation.
  • Jordan (1956): Medical actions causing subsequent death may negate liabilities for original perpetrator if treatment was unforeseen and unusually adverse.

Natural Acts

  • Legal liability is avoided if unforeseeable natural events reformulate an outcome contributing merely as an auxiliary factor in the case.

Case Study Analysis - Wallace (2018)

  • V's suicide post-assault was a result of D's actions; conduct not only precluded an attempt, but positioned D as instrumental in V’s choice.

Directions for Jury Consideration

  • Critical questions and preconditions for assigning guilt based on foreseeability of events and reasonableness of V's responses.

Upcoming Lecture

  • Topic: Mens Rea / Attempts.