Actus reus
Two elements of a criminal offence
Actus Reus - guilty act
each crime requires an actus reus
Mens Rea - guilty mind
not all crimes require a mens rea
these are called crimes of strict liability
Absence of defence
actus reus and the mens rea happen at the SAME TIME fagan v metropolitan police comissioner
Elements of actus reus - the guilty act
Maxim: actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea
an act does not make a person guilty unless their mind is also guilty
Lord Hailsham in Haughton v Smith 1975
What can constitute an actus reus
the defendants physical conduct eg drunk and disorderly
the circumstances surrounding what happened eg possession of an offensive weapon
the result caused by defendants actions eg murder (the offence is only made out if the victim subsequently dies)
Actus reus by omission
omission - failing to act
under english law, there is no general duty to act
several exceptions where an omission may result in an actus reus
contractual duty
a duty may be imposed by virtue of a contract - this will often be an employment contract
pittwood 1902
defendant had a duty to act through his employment contract
level crossing operator
one day d went to lunch and forgot to close the gate. train came and because the gate was open someone died by the passing train
by virture of the employment contract, by failing to close to gate he was criminlly liable.
special relationship between the defendant and the victim
dependent upon the relationship between defendant and victim, the law may impose a duty to act
under defined circumstances, particularly oarent and child relationships
can also include a fiduciary duty
Gibbons and Proctor 1918
parents of a child who died of neglect
they both failed to look after their child and adequetly feed them .
by failing to look after their child, the child died.
failing to act in this relationship made them guilty.
does not extend as far as siblings
evans 2009
doesnt go the other way of child to their parent or to siblings
airedale NHS trust v Bland 1993
no contractual duty between the doctor and patient, but contained contractual elements
doctor patient relationship
doctor seeked permission to switch off life support for a victim of the hillsborough disaster
voluntary assumption of responsibility
a duty may arise if one person has assumed a responsibility for another - extension of the special relationship
can be express or implied
Nicholls 1874
grandparent was looking after their vgrandchild
voloiunteered to take responsibility of the child
child died of negect
because the grandparents had volounteered, there was a volountary substition of the special relationship to take care of the child
Stone and Dobinson 1977
couple who had invited s sister to live with them
s sister had disabilities
by taking on board his sister to live with him, they took responsibility to look after her
suffered from annorexia and was confined to bed and the defendants did nothing to help her
after her death they were convicted of manslaughter
duty of care
volountairly assumed responsibility gave right to potential criminal liability
Ruffell 2003
invited a friend into their home
the friend then overdosed on drugs
courts said that ruffel had assumed responsibility for the victim when he tried to revive the victim
close persoanl relationship is enough
implied and express
statutory duty of common law duty
some statutory duties require a general duty requiring individuals to carry out certain activities and failure to adhere would result in criminal liability
eg having a car accident, you are required to report it to the police within 24 hours
certain indivuduals may be under a public duty to act if they hold a position of authority
Dytam 1979 - a common law duty was breached, but works similarly. dytham was liable due to his occupation
off duty police officer was liable as a result of their occupation and common law duty applied to them
d saw somebody being punched to death on the street
as a police officer , there was a common law duty to intervene in some way eg summon help
creation of a dangerous situation / continuing dangerous act
if the defendant creates a danger, they will be under a common law duty to avert the danger that he had created
the creation of the dangerous situation needs to be in advertend - but omitting to rectify this must be either deliberate or reckless
miller 1983
a squatter who went to sleep in a building on a matress with a lit ciggarette in his hand
matress was on fire
left the building to saftey
because he had created a situation that was dangerous, by failing to avert the danger eg calling fire bridade, he had created a duty of care to others.
by walking away the duty was breached
evans 2009 - need to take reasonable steps to avert the danger that they had created
khan and khan 1998
Causation
for an offence that requires a consequence to result from the defendants conduct, the prosecution must prove causation
two elements
factual causation
legal causation
sometimes the chain of causation can be broken through a novus actus interveniens (a new interveining act)
it is for the prosecution to establish causation
But for test
context is important
is the accused person responsible for the consequences of their actions
this is a legal responsibility so we need to take into account whether this would lead to a moral injustice
is there a relationship between cause and effect
Factual causation
the defendant needs to be the factual cause of the consequences that could amount to an offence
the but for test
but for the defendants actions, the prohibited outcome would not have happened
importance is underlined in hughes 2013
key cases
there is no factual causation if the defendant was unable to prevent the consequences occuring
dalloway 1847
but for test established in white 1910
d had decided to kill his mother
did so by poisoning his mothers drink
she dropped dead
HOWEVER, v had a heart attack so the victim had not died from the poison
therefore the defendants behaviour was not a factor in the death of his mother
Legal causation
you need to take a contextual approach on a case-by-case basis. often this is more applicable to more complex cases
kennedy no2 2007
d and v were together in a room
d had prepared a siringe of heroin who then self injected and then died as a result of the drugs
in this instance the court said there was no legal causation because the victim made the decision for themselves to take the drug
HOWEVER
in wallace, the court made out that while the victim had made the decision to trvel, it was because of the action that the d had done.
direct decision
defendants actions need not be the only cause of the consequence, but needs to be a significant contribution - wallace 2018
d assaulted her ex partner through an acid attack
led to the victim having life changing injuries
the v then decided to travel for life changing treatment
following the victims death, had the d caused the death
her contribution was significant enough that causation was satisfied
defining significance of D’s actions
the defendants actions need to be more than a slight or a triffling contribution to the consequences
kimsey 1996
defendants conduct does not need to be the sole or even main cause
smith 1959
cheshire 1991
conduct must be the operating and substantial cause
smith
malcherek
steel
conduct must contribute significantly to the consequences
pagett 1983
d’s actions need to have made a significant contribution
wallace 2018
Novus actus interveniens
legal causation may not be satisfied if there has been a novus actus interveniens, a break in the chain of causation
this can occur in numerous different ways
the eggshell skull/thin skull rule
have to take the victim as you find them
if the victim has a pre-existing medical condition, the chain of causation will not be broken
hayward 1849
the whole person, allowed the consideration of mental conditions and religious beliefs
blaue 1975
victim intervention
self neglect
where the defendants act is an immediet cause of the consequences, the chain of causation is not broken, even if the victims own actions are contributory
obiter in malcherek 1981
where the defendants act is not an immediate cause, it is more complicated
dear 1996
suggets that when the wound is not the operating and substantial cause, but is still relevant, the chain of causation would still be broken
escape
where a victim injured themselves or accidentally dies trying to escape
there is no chain of causation IF the victims response is foreseeable
roberts 1971
victim jumped from a moving car and was injured. no break in the chain of causation
would someone in the defendants shoes have forseen this behaviour?
marjoram 2000
objective test. same age and sex (general characteristics) as defendants
third party intervention
r v a 2020
an act of a third party in good faith does not break the chain of causation - malcherek 1981
if a third party is acting out of a legal obligation, this will not break the chain of causation - pagett 1983
police in a hostage situation
standof between police and defendant
police shot at the d through a door and killed the victim
the defendant was still liable as the police were acting out of obligation it was the defendant who was liable
deception
r v field
befriended older man and persuaded him to change his will
killed him and made it look like suicide.
staged drinking and drugs and spoke to people as if he was having suicidal thoughts
negligent medical treatment
medical treatment does not absolve the defendant of liability
even if treatment is negligent, courts impose a high threshold and rearely find a break in the chain of causation - smith 1959
cheshire 1991
negligent treatment was so independent of his acts, and in itslef so potent in causing death, that they regard the contribution made by his acts as insignificant
jordan 1956 - particular case decided on the specific facts
natural events
an independant natrual event may break the chain of causation
environment agency v empress car co ltd 1999
an intervening natrual event only breaks the chain of causation if it is abnormal and extraordinary
importance
reaffirmed by judicial decisions
kennedy no 2 2007
wallace 2018
rebelo 2021
there are other rules which have established when legal causation might be broken