ACTUS REUS

SPECIFICATION

CONTENT:

AR: conduct and consequence crimes, voluntary acts and omissions, involuntariness, causation

GUIDANCE

conduct and consequence crimes, voluntary acts and state of affairs; categories of omissions; factual and legal causation; ways the chain of causation can be broken


WHAT IS ACTUS REUS

The physical element of the crime, the GUILTY ACT.

  1. the voluntary act or omission

  2. which causes

  3. the end result


CONDUCT AND CONSEQUENCE CRIMES

CONDUCT CRIMES

Where the accused’s conduct forms the offence, and there is no required consequence from that conduct; e.g drink driving is a criminal offence, merely driving with alcohol in your system is the offence- no consequence (like an accident) is required.

CONSEQUENCE CRIMES

The consequence element must happen for the offence to be committed; e.g in the offence of assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm, there must be an assault but there must also be a consequence of ABH. This crime requires proof that the D’s AR (assault) caused the prohibited consequence (ABH).


VOLUNTARY ACT

An act must be voluntary for D to be convicted of the crime. If they have no control over their actions, they do not have an actus reus.

HILL V BAXTER: “an act has to be voluntary”

R V MITCHELL: a reflex actions from a spasm, or if one person pushes a second person to fall into a third, the o.g pusher has AR but not 2nd cause it wasn’t voluntary. D trying to push in a line.


OMISSIONS

“Good samaritan law”- makes a person responsible for helping others in an emergency situation. Don’t have in England and Wales; e.g in France when Princess Diana’s car crashed, paparazzi took photos instead of helping and french authorities threatened to charge them.

An omission is a failure to act. The general rule is that omission cannot make someone guilty of an offence but there are exceptions, if there is a DUTY TO ACT.

  • statutory duty - e.g ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1988: failing to report a road traffic accident (s.170) or failing to provide a breath specimen (s6)

R V PITTWOOD: “duty to act through contract”. Gatekeeper of level crossing- left open.

R V GIBBENS AND PROCTOR: “duty to act due to relationship”. Starved child to death.

R V STONE AND DOBINSON: “duty to act through responsibility”. Volunteered to undertake duty of looking after elder sister- who died from malnutrition.

R V EVANS: “D had created a state of affairs where she should have reasonably known were threatening to the life of V and therefore had an assumed duty- UNDERTAKEN VOLUNTARILY. Gave sister heroin (who was an addict) and she and her mother put her to bed hoping she’d recover.

R V DYTHAM: “duty to act due to official position” PC didnt intervene when man was being killed.

R V MILLER: “duty to minimise harmful effects”. D fell asleep smoking and caused fire. Where D has created dangerous situation- they have a duty to deal with it.

DPP V SANTA-BERMUDEZ: “a duty which arises because D set in motion a chain of events”. D knew of danger and failed to warn V.

DOCTORS- AIREDALE NHS V BLAND: Man on life support, D’s applied to court to stop feeding him- leading to his death (after 3 years) and that it was in his best interest.

There can be cases where doctors decided to stop treating patient- if discontinuance of treatment is in best interests of P, no omission (so cant form AR). Likely a policy reason to protect doctors.

STATE OF AFFAIRS

Consists of being in a particular situation or place, rather than doing a prohibited action.

R V LARSONNEUR: A french woman was found guilty of being an illegal alien, even though she was brought to England involuntarily by Irish police.


CAUSATION

Part of AR of crime. Rule of causation is applied to all criminal scenarios to decide whether D’s acts had caused the consequence they are being charged with.

FACTUAL

R V PAGETT: The ‘but for’’ test. ‘But for’ D’s actions, would the consequence occurred?

R V WHITE: act must cause the consequence

LEGAL

D’s actions must be the “operating and substantial cause” of the consequence …

R V KIMSEY: and that there must be “more than a sight and trifling link”

THIN SKULL RULE

  • D must take V ‘as they find them’- meaning if V has something unusual about their state mentally or physically which ages an injury more serious, then D is liable for the more serious injury. R V BLAUE: V was stabbed and needed blood, but refused to take due to religious beliefs. Despite fact her religious belief made the wound fatal, d was still guilty as he has to ‘take his victim as he found her.’

NOVUS ACTUS INTERVENIENS

“New act interviewing” e.g medical intervention- this can break the chain of causation

ACTS BY A THIRD PARTY

R V JORDAN: intervention was “palpably wrong”

R V CHESHIRE: intervention was not independent enough from the act

R V SMITH: “operating and substantial cause”

VICTIMS OWN ACT

R V ROBERTS: V’s act was “reasonably foreseeable”

R V WILLIAMS: V’s acts was “unreasonable”